Divorce question

[Soloist]

Wife: well, unless it was never a valid marriage to start with, that sounds an awful lot like a divorce or possibly like shunning an unbeliever.

Conservative Anabaptists expect people to do this all the time. The Holdemans simply have a somewhat different arrangement of rules.

In every case I’m aware of the ex member has been encouraged NOT to separate from their non member spouse but instead to pray for their salvation.

In the case of two ex members, I don’t see the problem. If they went to be back in church they simply need to both choose to be back in church. The end.

Wife: Well, if they’re encouraged not to separate, that’s good. The only time that I’ve ever heard of this being expected in the broader conservative Anabaptist community is in the case of an adulterous marriage. Some other groups might encourage this if there was adultery going on, depending on the view of the exception clause.

If a church requires something for membership that the Bible forbids, I’m going to choose the Bible.

[Soloist]

Wife: as far as it goes, if we start using Old Testament teachings (for example, Ezra) to supersede the teachings of Jesus, how do we pick and choose which ones apply now and which ones don’t? It could get pretty messy.

[Chris IN]

I am gathering the original questions were harder to answer than debating the ins and outs of our official stance of divorce and remarriage.

It is because divorce and/or remarriage is such a tough topic that makes dealing with it on a personal, family level so difficult.

[mike]

I am gathering the original questions were harder to answer than debating the ins and outs of our official stance of divorce and remarriage.

It is because divorce and/or remarriage is such a tough topic that makes dealing with it on a personal, family level so difficult.

For me, clarity comes from the simple belief in the biblical principle that nothing other than death breaks the marriage bond. For the majority of conservative Anabaptists, other than Holdemans and maybe some others, this is our position.

[Chris IN]

I am gathering the original questions were harder to answer than debating the ins and outs of our official stance of divorce and remarriage.

It is because divorce and/or remarriage is such a tough topic that makes dealing with it on a personal, family level so difficult.

For me, clarity comes from the simple belief in the biblical principle that nothing other than death breaks the marriage bond. For the majority of conservative Anabaptists, other than Holdemans and maybe some others, this is our position.

As is mine.

But how do you handle the situation practically when someone in your close circle ends up in the situation?

[mike]

I am gathering the original questions were harder to answer than debating the ins and outs of our official stance of divorce and remarriage.

It is because divorce and/or remarriage is such a tough topic that makes dealing with it on a personal, family level so difficult.

For me, clarity comes from the simple belief in the biblical principle that nothing other than death breaks the marriage bond. For the majority of conservative Anabaptists, other than Holdemans and maybe some others, this is our position.

As is mine.

But how do you handle the situation practically when someone in your close circle ends up in the situation?

I haven't read all this thread and the scenarios being discussed, but if I felt someone close to me began living in sin, I would have to treat them differently, even family, whether that means not attending weddings or inviting them to events and things of that nature.

I have a sister in law whose sister is currently dating a divorced man whose wife is still living, and my sister in law and her father already told her that the relationship is not right, and if she marries him, they will not attend the wedding. (For the record, these folks are Wesleyan Holiness, not Anabaptist.) And they already know this will be a very hard thing to deal with in their family.

[Soloist]

Wife: I have a couple family members (parent and stepparent) in a slightly similar situation, I think they had some relationship before the divorce and then it was rekindled later. Also, lots of drugs/alcohol involved (at least in the past). I went to the wedding when I was young (I wouldn’t be comfortable with that at this point), and we have talked to them about it, but in general, I try to show similar love to the non related spouse, but I don’t have children use titles for grandparent and I don’t call the stepparent anything other their name. Maybe it would be different for aunt or uncle, but it seems disrespectful to the other parent that was cheated on. That’s something that has been pretty consistent and hasn’t actually changed with my viewpoint, so it’s not like I had to stop using terms.

I don’t really make a big deal out of it other than not having them stay at our house, but there’s other reasons for that too. We visit and do activities together though.

Maybe that’s not the best correlation, because they did not grow up with the same teachings. They were being encouraged to marry at one point, because otherwise they were living in fornication, and they had a child. That child is just as much my sibling as any of my others IMO.

[ken_sylvania]

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?

Is it actually praiseworthy? Breaking up such marriages was never commanded in Scripture, in fact it arguably goes against the teachings of the Old Testament, not to mention the New Testament as well (even though the marriages themselves were also against the Law). The mass divorces were proposed by a man, not commanded by God, and the text merely records what Ezra said and what they did. Both Ezra and Nehemiah start with hope, good intentions, and obedience, but both have anticlimactic endings deliberately woven into the text. They're not hagiographic tales about heroes making everything right; they're showing that even these godly leaders did not bring the change Israel needed and although Israel was back in the land, their spiritual condition was not very different. Both Ezra and Nehemiah were flawed and did not bring the Kingdom of God, and in that way, the strange, anticlimactic endings point out man's brokenness and the need for a Savior.

There is nothing in the text to indicate that Ezra's response was the wrong response. Their response certainly did not go against the teachings of the New Testament, which did not exist at that time.

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.

But that (the bolded part) is a legitimate interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7 and it seems to be the best interpretation. Verse 11 is addressing a different situation to verse 15 and so its instructions do not apply to the situation in verse 15. In fact the instructions in verse 15 are intended to be a contrast to the instructions in verse 11.

Let's go through it step by step.

1. Verse 11 is addressed to a wife who has left her husband: she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. The same applies to husbands.

2. Verses 12-14 explain that the same still applies to a husband or wife living with an unbelieving spouse: If the spouse is willing to stay, the Christian spouse must stay also.

3. Drop down momentarily to verse 15 and note that the situation addressed here is different than the situation addressed in verse 11: the unbeliever, not the Christian spouse, is the one who has left. And Paul gives different instructions here.

4. But go back up to vs. 10-13: Note that Paul uses two different Greek words in these verses, chōrizō which basically means separate, leave, or depart, and aphiēmi, which means more literally to divorce or put away. But don't get the wrong idea: Paul means the same thing in both cases, kind of like using the words dissolve or breakup to mean divorce in English. It's just a stylistic difference - don't exaggerate the difference. The fact that "depart" means "divorce" in verse 11 can be seen by the fact that Paul says, Let her remain unmarried. The divorce has already occurred and she is in a situation where she might remarry, so Paul says, Don't. Either remain that way or be reconciled.

It appears you are using the word "unmarried" to do the work of proving that an actual divorce has taken place. I would say that the use of "reconciled" and "husband" would suggest that Paul is giving these instructions regardless of whether a divorce has taken place.

This can be further confirmed by noting that in verses 10-13, Paul is paralleling his instructions, giving the same instructions to both husbands and wives. In verse 11 Paul is not intending to give the husband different instructions than he gave the wife at the end of vs. 10:

Let not the wife depart from her husband... and let not the husband put away his wife.

He similarly addresses husbands in vs. 12 and wives in vs. 13 in the parallel situation, making sure it's clear that wives ane husbands have the same instructions.

5. Now let's go back to verse 15:

But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart [chōrizō]. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases.

Paul once again uses the same word as he did at the end of vs. 10/beginning of 11. It's not a difference in meaning, but using the same word stylistically emphasizes the contrast Paul is making: This is a different situation. The unbeliever, not the Christian, has departed (divorced). And the Christian is not under bondage in this case.

Once again, "depart" here means divorce, just as in vss. 10-11. So this is not giving a second reason for divorce (abandonment - the first reason would be adultery, per the Exception Clause), as if the spouse can leave without divorcing and then you can go get a divorce. No, this is saying that if your spouse divorces you (you are the innocent party, your spouse left the marriage and sought the divorce), you are no longer bound to them.

If Paul had wanted to say that they should remain unmarried or reconcile in this latter case, he could have. Instead, what he says contrasts to what he said earlier: A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. In vs. 11, they are bound (as in verse 39): they must either remain unmarried or reconcile. It would make no sense to say you're not bound but you still must either marry or reconcile, since that is precisely what Paul is saying they are not bound to do.

If Paul had wanted to say that the "innocent" partner is free to marry, he could have. Instead, he simply says that they are not bound to live with a person who does not want to live with them, stating that God has called us to peace. He says nothing about them being free to marry.

Your proposed interpretation of the passage has a number of practical problems, not the least of which is that it proposes that Paul is promoting a teaching that would be in direct opposition to Jesus' teaching about divorce. Even taking into account the so-called Exception Clause, Jesus says a person who marries a divorced person commits adultery. And he says that a person who puts away his wife for any reason other than fornication causes her to commit adultery, which indicates that remarriage by an "innocent" divorced person is adultery.

I think that if there are multiple ways to interpret Paul's teaching here, then we need to interpret it in a way that harmonizes with what Jesus taught.

[JohnH]

The exception clause rather clearly states that a man who remarries does not commit adultery if the exception applies.

[ken_sylvania]

The exception clause rather clearly states that a man who remarries does not commit adultery if the exception applies.

And in the very next breath he says that anyone who marries a divorced woman is committing adultery. Matt's proposed interpretation of Paul's writing would have Paul saying that it's OK for the divorced woman to remarry even if her former husband did not.