A Mennonite view of divorce and remarriage

[Bootstrap]

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

I was surprised by 1c, because it is different from what most lexicons say. And it is a little strange, because it uses a definition based on theology rather than usage, which is not what lexicons are supposed to do - and the theology reads something into the verse that it doesn't say, and doesn't take the exception clause into account. So I went and looked it up in Thayer, and guess what? That's not what the original Thayer's lexicon says.

Here's the definition from Thayer's Lexicon, which is very similar to what you see an any other Greek lexicon:

Screen Shot 2016-12-21 at 7.37.24 AM.png (529.45 KiB) Viewed 2506 times

[Bootstrap]

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

This seems to come from here: Scriptural and Early Christian Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage. That's a much better explanation of the modern Conservative Anabaptist view than most, and I agree with most of what it says. It doesn't make silly claims about Greek and it doesn't push the betrothal view, which really is a bit of a stretch.

I think it's weak on the exception clause, though. But I don't think he completely follows the advice that he gives here:

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.

I agree with that. When I apply that to the exception clause, I find myself agreeing with the early Anabaptists. I also disagree with the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7, which is why I agree almost 100% with the interpretation GAMEO says the early Anabaptists had.

[Bootstrap]

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 really do think this is the most straightforward reading of Scripture. In the Pilgrim thread, I think some people were wondering why someone who holds this view would claim to be in the tradition of the early Anabaptists. This is the view of the early Anabaptists. And they would not want us to believe them on their own authority, but I think this is also a simple obedience to Scripture very much along the lines of what they demonstrated in their own lives. According to GAMEO, they also allowed remarriage for an abandoned spouse.

In a tract entitled Concerning Divorce written by one of the first Swiss Brethren in 1527, possibly by Michael Sattler, appears the earliest known Anabaptist treatment of the subject. The main points in this tract stressed: (1) the permanence of the marriage bond; (2) the supremacy of one's obligation to Christ over obligation to the marriage partner; (3) the only ground for divorce was adultery; (4) to marry one guilty of fornication was itself fornication; (5) the innocent party to a divorce was not forbidden to remarry, and was by implication permitted to do so. Except for the fifth point, regarding which there was some ambiguity and occasional divergence within the brotherhood, this tract can be thought of as summarizing quite well the position of the Mennonite church regarding divorce through the mid 20th century.

[Bootstrap]

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.

To me, that doesn't seem like a reason to change the teaching. The emphasis of Scripture is on the "don't divorce" side, and we should definitely teach people not to divorce. For a divorced Christian who is single, I think a congregation can and should help discern whether marrying again is wise and is in God's will, using Scripture as a guide, but also looking at the person's life and calling. Without that kind of discernment, no set of rules is going to get it right.

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.

That makes sense to me. But to me, urging people to divorce if they have remarried is not erring on the side of caution. When Jesus says "don't divorce!", it's dangerous for us to interpret that as "divorce!"

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.

In Jewish teaching, of course, a divorce certificate was exactly that right to remarry, that's the whole purpose of it. In Matthew, Jesus says that it's adultery to remarry "except" in cases of adultery, the simplest reading is that it is not adultery in that case. And in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul speaks quite differently to (1) a spouse who leaves, versus (2) a spouse who is abandoned.

[appleman2006]

Bootstrap, I think at this point we are all very familiar with your view. Or I guess I should say those of us that have been here any length of time are. And I do understand why in your case you see it as your mission to prove our view wrong and yours correct. I am not unsympathetic to your situation.

However the fact remains that almost any modern church that has accepted your view is only a generation from experiencing divorce and remarriage at nearly the same level as society around them. And some of us cannot accept that that is in fact what God has in mind for followers of his.

What hurts me most is that this mindset is creeping into our churches at an alarming rate and with it marriages that I would never of dreamed would be in trouble are being shattered. I am experiencing it in my own extended family. Trust me. I would like nothing more than to be convinced that your interpretation is correct. It would make life a lot easier for me right now but even though I have read all your arguments, Lester's still holds much more true to me.
What really bothers me is the number of divorced people who I know who have accepted their lot in life and are serving Christ as a single person and doing so with a very positive attitude. I can only imagine what reading some of your remarks would make them feel like. Even though I am sure that is not your intention.

I leave your situation between you and God. You do not have to convince me. It will not make on iota of difference. But please try to understand that those of us that hold to the position described in the opening of this thread do not do so lightly. We do not hold to it in a "we are better than you" type of way. Rather we truly believe that that is what God's plan for marriage is and we have seen both from a practical point and a historical point that people are blessed when they literally follow His plan for marriage.

Lastly for any reading this from conservative circle's that may be wondering if following God in this way is really worth it. I appreciate your struggle. I really can understand the temptation to just give in. But please, I beg of you. Be very very careful. What may seem like a heavy load to bare right not could turn into sheer torture. I have seen it happen too many times.

[Bootstrap]

Bootstrap, I think at this point we are all very familiar with your view. Or I guess I should say those of us that have been here any length of time are. And I do understand why in your case you see it as your mission to prove our view wrong and yours correct. I am not unsympathetic to your situation.

I really don't see that as my mission. I'm rarely the person who first brings this topic up, and when it does come up, it seems to come with a zeal to prove the traditional Anabaptist position wrong, and sometimes even to question the faith of anyone who believes that way.

I think the early Anabaptists had this one right. I think the simplest reading of Scripture takes "except" seriously. My opinion has no authority, Scripture does. I'm usually one of the more involved people here on any question of what Scripture says, this is one of them.

However the fact remains that almost any modern church that has accepted your view is only a generation from experiencing divorce and remarriage at nearly the same level as society around them. And some of us cannot accept that that is in fact what God has in mind for followers of his.

My view is the same as the view of the early Anabaptists. Is that really what happened in their churches? The Catholic church's teaching is much stricter, yet their divorce rate is not much different from the American population as a whole.

I agree that we need to work against divorce. I'm not at all convinced that preventing people legitimately divorced from remarrying is the best way to do that. I do think that all marriages involve discernment - even first marriages - and that the church should walk with believers through that process.

What really bothers me is the number of divorced people who I know who have accepted their lot in life and are serving Christ as a single person and doing so with a very positive attitude. I can only imagine what reading some of your remarks would make them feel like. Even though I am sure that is not your intention.

What really bothers me is the guilt trip some put on some marriages that, scripturally, are valid marriages, and even pressure to divorce. Turning the command "don't divorce!' into "divorce!" is not simple obedience to Scripture.

I think anyone who is single should carefully discern God's calling on their life together with their church, including whether marriage is part of that. Singleness is an important calling in the New Testament. In your church, a divorced person would be encouraged not to remarry regardless of what led to the divorce. I guess that would be part of the discernment.

I leave your situation between you and God. You do not have to convince me. It will not make on iota of difference. But please try to understand that those of us that hold to the position described in the opening of this thread do not do so lightly. We do not hold to it in a "we are better than you" type of way. Rather we truly believe that that is what God's plan for marriage is and we have seen both from a practical point and a historical point that people are blessed when they literally follow His plan for marriage.

And I leave your church's position between you and God. But I don't think it is the most straightforward interpretation of Scripture, and I especially question encouraging people to divorce.

[Bootstrap]

The word fornication had a broader meaning in 1611 than it does now, I think.

I think most modern dictionaries understand it more or less the way it was understood in 1611. For instance, here is Webster's:

consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other — compare adultery

So let's compare to adultery:

voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband; also : an act of adultery.

So if a married person has sex with someone else, that fits both definitions. This is equally true for English and Greek.

[RZehr]

However the fact remains that almost any modern church that has accepted your view is only a generation from experiencing divorce and remarriage at nearly the same level as society around them.

Your position may be right. But this particular observation isn't really a valid point, is it?
The end doesn't justify the means. The Holdeman Mennonites "only church" doctrine appears to be working to keep people in the church, but that doesn't mean they are correct to teach that.

[Wade]

lesterb wrote:
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.

I don't know if I will ever be able to relate remarriage after divorce to holy living when I consider that we are to imitate Christ in faithfulness and purity.
But that is okay to me despite whether I can explain or convince myself or others through intellect.

[appleman2006]

However the fact remains that almost any modern church that has accepted your view is only a generation from experiencing divorce and remarriage at nearly the same level as society around them.

Your position may be right. But this particular observation isn't really a valid point, is it?
The end doesn't justify the means. The Holdeman Mennonites "only church" doctrine appears to be working to keep people in the church, but that doesn't mean they are correct to teach that.

This particular reason is not a direct Biblical reason. I agree the Bible does not say directly that holding to this position will ensure less cases of divorce and remarriage in a given community. But the fact remains that it does and I believe it comes as a result of holding to God's view of marriage. The end of course does not justify the means alone but when the end is positive it is an added sign that the means may be correct.

I think your Holdeman argument is a straw man argument and not a true comparison in that I do not think that doctrine is scripturally based at all.