Divorce question

[JohnH]

There is Ezra 10:3.

My denomination uses that as justification for why you should separate from a spouse when a member marries a non-member. This injunction is clearly aimed, though, at telling men of the Israelite nation they needed to separate from non-Israelite wives. Such a notion at all would be extremely offensive to modern-day people.

[Bootstrap]

So you believe that the Scriptures promote and hold up the notion of breaking up marriages with children? Where?

There is Ezra 10:3.

I think Ezra 10 is a very specific situation involving covenant faithfulness, Israel’s identity after exile, and marriages explicitly forbidden under the Mosaic covenant. It's a command for one specific time, it is not presented as a general model for resolving broken marriages.

And if Ezra 10 is being proposed as a Christian model, where do Jesus or the apostles ever apply it that way?

[eccentric_rambler]

I'm not proposing it as a Christian model. I am proposing that Israel's situation in the book of Ezra fits several of your thoughts.

So you believe that the Scriptures promote and hold up the notion of breaking up marriages with children? Where? You believe that the value of preserving even second marriages in Deuteronomy was overruled by the New Testament? Where?

...

David could repent, yet the consequences of his sins remained woven into the lives of many people.

...

At some point, the question becomes: what covenant responsibilities exist now, before God, toward the people presently entrusted to one’s care?

[Anthony]

Most Conservative Anabaptists would not be favor of breaking up an adulterous marriage in order to return to an earlier one. Rather, a divorced couple can only be reconciled if no subsequent marriages have taken place.

Is this true? I am not a plain Anabaptist, I did not know this.

Amongst Swiss Anabaptists who are more conservative / plain, there are two positions. sojourner is describing the "stricter" position.

They would that the second marriage needs to broken up, but nobody can return to the earlier first marriage. Everyone has to stay single until somebody dies. This would be the position of German Baptist Brethren including one type of Old Brethren, Eastern PMC&RA, most Old Orders, and many others. This view puts some validity on the second marriage, believing that you somehow have to remain faithful to both marriage covenants (but being "faithful" apparently means not living with or being intimate with either).

The other position is that what matters is if a marriage is "valid" or not, and subsequent "invalid" marriages are as if they never happened, so returning to the earlier spouse is fine. They view a divorce and remarriage as being the same thing as an affair or adultery. This would be the view of most Beachys, Mid-West, Pilgrim (maybe?), and so on.

There are some rare views like one of the Old Brethren positions (Petition #1?) which holds that living with someone equals a marriage covenant with them and also binds you to that person for life with no option to exit, since the "marriage" was done in rebellion to church. Nigerian Holdemans hold a similar position.

Russian (Dutch) Anabaptists generally don't hold any of these positions and would be closer to Menno Simons' or Michael Sattler's view, believing the marriage bond can be broken by a certain threshold of immorality, generally speaking, that being adultery or getting married to another person, with an "innocent" and a "not innocent" spouse in the resultant break-up.

This is accurate I believe. When joining my church I asked about divorce from a different religion, thinking they would try and play a game of “that marriage was never legit so you are ok to divorce”. But the ministry held that even muslim or secular marriages are considered valid and should not be broken up. I personally hold to the position that both parties should stay celibate and single until an ex-spouse dies.

[R7ehr]

There is Ezra 10:3.

My denomination uses that as justification for why you should separate from a spouse when a member marries a non-member. This injunction is clearly aimed, though, at telling men of the Israelite nation they needed to separate from non-Israelite wives. Such a notion at all would be extremely offensive to modern-day people.

What? Your denomination permits (or encourages?) separation in the case of a member marrying a non-member?

[ken_sylvania]

There is NO example in the NT of the church breaking up a marriage to try to restore an earlier one. I assume that there were people in second marriages in the early church. When Jesus talks to the woman at the well, he definitely speaks of new life that would lead to repentance, but there is no indication he would ask her to return to a previous husband.

This is the difference between the way the Reformers handled the scriptures vs. the Anabaptists.
The Reformers read the scriptures and said, "If the scriptures do not forbid something, we are allowed to do it."
The Anabaptists read the scriptures and said, "Whatever the scriptures promote and hold up as ideal, that we should do!"

So you believe that the Scriptures promote and hold up the notion of breaking up marriages with children? Where?

As was mentioned earlier, in Ezra the breaking up of marriages entered into in direct violation of the law of Moses is held forth as a praiseworthy thing. And not only breaking up the marriages, but putting away the children resulting from those marriages. Why wouldn't the principle carry forward to marriages that Jesus says constitute adultery?

You believe that the value of preserving even second marriages in Deuteronomy was overruled by the New Testament? Where?

No, because Deuteronomy doesn't contain any sort of provision specially intended to preserve second marriages.

The New Testament certainly upholds lifelong faithfulness as the ideal. It clearly condemns hardness of heart, covenant breaking, and sexual immorality. But I do not see it teaching that repentance requires abandoning one’s present spouse and children in order to reconstruct a former marriage that no longer exists in reality.

I've never heard anyone teach that the New Testament teaches that one should abandon his present spouse in order to reconstruct a former marriage. I don't believe it's a majority position among conservative Mennonites.

The New Testament certainly upholds lifelong faithfulness as the ideal. It clearly condemns hardness of heart, covenant breaking, and sexual immorality.

You forgot to include "marriage to another person while one's former spouse is still alive" in your list of things that the New Testament clearly condemns.

I'm not convinced that there's a simple rule that says returning to the original spouse is always possible or right.

I realize that most Conservative Mennonites see this differently.

Actually, most Conservative Mennonites would absolutely agree with you on this.

So I think these things should flavor our discernment and our response. If we want to create a set of guidelines for these cases, I also think it's important to take things like these into account:

1. The "except for adultery" clauses in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 9:19.
2. "Not bound" and "free" in 1 Corinthians 7. If you read the chapter as a whole, people who are "not bound" are free to marry. And that seems to include this part: "But if the unbelieving spouse leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace."

It's simply not accurate to say that 1 Corinthians 7 says that people who are "not bound" are free to marry. Just because a person is "not in bondage" to a particular person doesn't automatically mean they may legitimately be "bound" to another person. Verse 11 makes this clear - a separated wife is instructed to remain unmarried, clearly putting the lie to the idea that she is free to remarry.

When Jesus talks to the woman at the well, he definitely speaks of new life that would lead to repentance, but there is no indication he would ask her to return to a previous husband.

Nor is there any indication that any of her husbands are still alive. But, on that note - the text does tell us that she was with a man who was not her husband. Is there any indication, in the text, that Jesus asked her to either marry or discontinue her relationship with this man to whom she was not married? Using your logic, one would have to conclude that Jesus was condoning hookup culture.

Deuteronomy 24 explicitly says that if a wife has married another man, she may not return to her first husband. This seems designed to protect the second marriage.

In the very same verse the reason for the prohibition is given. Any idea what reason God gave for it? (hint, it says nothing about preserving second marriages)

[ken_sylvania]

There is Ezra 10:3.

My denomination uses that as justification for why you should separate from a spouse when a member marries a non-member. This injunction is clearly aimed, though, at telling men of the Israelite nation they needed to separate from non-Israelite wives. Such a notion at all would be extremely offensive to modern-day people.

What? Your denomination permits (or encourages?) separation in the case of a member marrying a non-member?

I guess I wouldn't feel like it's totally wrong for a GOGICM woman to separate from her husband if he were to get married to a non-member...

[Ernie]

There is NO example in the NT of the church breaking up a marriage to try to restore an earlier one. I assume that there were people in second marriages in the early church. When Jesus talks to the woman at the well, he definitely speaks of new life that would lead to repentance, but there is no indication he would ask her to return to a previous husband.

This is the difference between the way the Reformers handled the scriptures vs. the Anabaptists.
The Reformers read the scriptures and said, "If the scriptures do not forbid something, we are allowed to do it."
The Anabaptists read the scriptures and said, "Whatever the scriptures promote and hold up as ideal, that we should do!"

Sorry. I should have clarified that this is how some historians have summarized the thinking of the two different faith traditions.
There are writing that say things similar to these but these are not direct quotes.

e.g.
John Whitgift
“Those things that are not against the Word of God, and tend to order and decency, may lawfully be retained in the Church.”

Martin Luther
“What is not against Scripture is for Scripture, and Scripture for it.”

Martin Chemnitz
Often called “the Second Martin” after Luther:
“In matters that are neither commanded nor forbidden by the divine Word, liberty should be retained.”

Lutheran and Anglican traditions tended toward: “What Scripture does not forbid may be allowed.”
Calvinist/Puritan traditions tended toward: “Only what Scripture commands is allowed,” especially in worship.

[ken_sylvania]

There is NO example in the NT of the church breaking up a marriage to try to restore an earlier one. I assume that there were people in second marriages in the early church. When Jesus talks to the woman at the well, he definitely speaks of new life that would lead to repentance, but there is no indication he would ask her to return to a previous husband.

This is the difference between the way the Reformers handled the scriptures vs. the Anabaptists.
The Reformers read the scriptures and said, "If the scriptures do not forbid something, we are allowed to do it."
The Anabaptists read the scriptures and said, "Whatever the scriptures promote and hold up as ideal, that we should do!"

Sorry. I should have clarified that this is how some historians have summarized the thinking of the two different faith traditions.
There are quotes that say things very similar to this but this is not a direct quote.

e.g.
John Whitgift
“Those things that are not against the Word of God, and tend to order and decency, may lawfully be retained in the Church.”

Lutheran and Anglican traditions tended toward: “What Scripture does not forbid may be allowed.”
Calvinist/Puritan traditions tended toward: “Only what Scripture commands is allowed,” especially in worship.

In some ways John Whitgift's quote wouldn't seem that foreign to conservative Mennonites in their understanding of church authority.

[Ernie]

In some ways John Whitgift's quote wouldn't seem that foreign to conservative Mennonites in their understanding of church authority.

Yeah, that probably wasn't the best example.