Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadWorks of Arthur Pink: Pink, Arthur - Articles and Sermons: Divorce contd
TOPIC: Pink, Arthur - Articles and Sermons (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: Divorce contd
Other Subjects in this Topic:
Divorce contd
Above, we have said, that to make 1 Corinthians 7:15 mean that desertion severs the marriage tie, sets the apostle at direct variance with the ringing declaration of his Master; and so far as we are concerned, that single consideration settles the question, and compels us to reject the common interpretation of that verse. The words of Christ are too plain to be misunderstood: "But I say unto you [against all who aver otherwise], That whoever shall put away his wife, except [only] for the cause of fornication [adultery], causes her to commit adultery [should she cohabit with any other man]: and whoever shall marry her that is divorced [on any other ground] commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32). He repeats the same thing in Matthew 19:9.
Christ is both the Prophet and the Head of His Church, and beyond His authoritative decision, there is no appeal. But again, the popular view of 1 Corinthians 7:15 is entirely against the scope and method of the passage in which it occurs. In the preceding paragraphs, we have been at some pains to make clear Paul's line of thought therein, and have considered, first, his directions unto those who were contemplating a divorce (1 Corinthians 7:10-11), affirming that being married unto an idolater did not constitute a ground for such. And second, that such a situation did not even call for a separation (1 Corinthians 7:12-14).
Thus, to regard verse 15 as treating of something which supplied cause for a divorce, is to suppose the apostle guilty of a literary lapse, and what is worse, make verse 15 flatly contradict what he said in verse 11. But the apostle is to be charged with no such confusion as that: it is the minds of his expositors which are befogged. In verse 15, Paul does not go back to the matter dealt with in verses 10 and 11—but instead, continues and completes the subject under discussion in verses 12 to 14. The question resolved in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 is: Does a Christian married to a heathen call for a separation, as is clear from the apostle's "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord"—that is Christ Himself had given out no decision thereon. In verses 12 and 13, orders were given that where the unbelieving partner is willing for the Christian mate to continue cohabiting, there must be no separation. In verse 14, he amplifies that injunction. First, by showing that a separation is needless; and second, that it would be disastrous for the children.
Then in verse 15, he contemplates the other alternative, namely, Suppose the idolater is unwilling for the Christian mate to remain—then what shall the latter do? Most probably there were cases where a devout heathen was bitterly opposed to Christianity, and therefore, violently hostile to the idea of continuing to live with a husband or wife who had become an avowed Christian. When this was the case, and no appeal of either reason or affection had any effect—then what policy ought the believing partner to adopt? That is the question to which the apostle here furnishes answer, nor does there appear to us the least ambiguity in his language. "But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart" (1 Corinthians 7:15). If he has deliberately deserted you because of a difference of religion, you must bow to the will of God. If it has not pleased Him to subdue the prejudice of your husband and soften his heart toward you—then you must acquiesce with the divine providence. The onus rests upon him, and you must accept the situation with good grace.
"A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases" is explained by the words that immediately follow: "but God has called us to peace." In such a case, the believing wife is not to have recourse unto litigation and insist that the deserter be compelled by law to return unto her. The Christian wife is under no moral bonds to pursue her husband into the courts and demand that he make provision for her support, for that would be to follow a policy the very reverse of that "peace" which God has enjoined upon His children (Romans 12:18, 14:19; Heb 12:14).
Believers are the sons "of peace" (Luke 10:6), followers of the Prince of peace, and where no biblical principle is involved, they must avoid all contention and strife. Not a word does the apostle say in 1 Corinthians 7:15 about desertion or dissolving the marriage tie; still less that in such a case, the believer is free to marry again—that is man's presumptuous addition to the Word of God. Furthermore, that which immediately follows militates against such an idea. "For what know you, O wife, whether you shall save your husband? or how know you, O man, whether you shall save your wife?" (1 Corinthians 7:16). The opening "for" obviously has the force of "because" and introduces an important consideration to deter from all precipitate and extreme action. Unmistakably, it makes directly against the erroneous view taken of the preceding verse, for if the wife has divorced the husband, what hope could there be of God making use of her in winning him!
Verse 17 supplies an additional reason why neither divorce nor separation should be insisted upon: "But as God has distributed to every man, as the Lord has called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I [proving it was far more than a mere personal advice which the apostle was here offering!] in all churches." Paul was averse from breaking up the marital relation or any social position the Christian had occupied before conversion. Christianity is not a revolutionary and disorganizing element—but is designed to promote the general good. Loyalty to Christ does not forbid—but requires, husbands and wives to dwell together in peace, servants to obey their masters, subjects to honor the king. It is little to be wondered at that the profane world now entertains such lax views on the sanctity of marriage, when so many professing Christians advocate such an anti-Scriptural sentiment as the permissibility of divorce, merely for desertion.
It is greatly to be regretted that so many good men during the last three centuries taught that error, for they but paved the way for the well-near total moral breakdown which prevails today. When the leaders of Christendom sowed such seed, no other harvest could be expected. Better taught were the early Puritans. One equal in spirituality and scholarship to any member of the Westminster Assembly wrote fifty years earlier, "A man with a good conscience cannot give a bill of divorcement for any cause but adultery, and therefore, those laws which permit divorce for other causes are greatly faulty before God. If any should ask whether men's laws may not make more causes of divorce, than this one? I answer, No, for marriage is not a mere civil thing—but partly spiritual and divine, and therefore, God only has power to appoint the beginning, the continuance, and the end thereof." William Perkins (1558-1602), 1587.
Turning now to the last division of our subject. When the marriage bond has been broken by one party—is the innocent one, after a divorce has been obtained, free—in the sight of God, we mean—to marry again? Or is he or she shut up unto a life of celibacy? This question need not detain us very long—yet it is one that calls for a brief consideration at least, for Christendom by no means returns a uniform answer thereto. Probably many of our readers are aware that one of the errors of the Mother of harlots concerning marriage is that it is unlawful for a man who has repudiated his wife for adultery to marry again. Nor is that view entirely peculiar to Romanists, for some Protestants have entertained the same idea, being misled by our Lord's words in Mark 10:11, "Whoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her," regarding that as an unqualified and absolute restriction. But that is a mistake, through failing to read this verse in the light of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.
Scripture must be explained by Scripture, and briefer statements read in the light of fuller ones, and never must one be pitted against the other. Particularly is this the case with the first three Gospels; parallel passages should be consulted, and the shorter one read in the light of the longer one. Thus, when Peter asked Christ, "How often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times?" our Lord's answer "Until seventy times seven" (Matthew 18:21-22) must not be taken to signify that we are to condone wrongs and exercise grace at the expense of righteousness, for He had just previously said, "If your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone: if he shall hear [heed] you, you have gained your brother" (Matthew 18:15). No, rather, must His language in Matthew 18:22 be interpreted by His amplified declaration in Luke 17:3-4, "If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to you, saying, I repent—you shall forgive him"! God Himself does not forgive us, until we repent (Acts 2:38; 3:19). While we must not entertain any bitterness or malice in our hearts against those who wrong us—yet not until they acknowledge their offence are we to fellowship with them as if no offence had been committed. So, too, in order to obtain a right conception of the great commission which the Redeemer has given to His ministers, we need to bring all three accounts thereof together, and not confine ourselves unto only one of them: "That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name" (Luke 24:47) is equally essential as bidding sinners, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 16:31).
Thus with the matter we are now discussing: Mark 10:11 is to be interpreted by Matthew 5:32: "Whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whoever shall marry her that is divorced [for any other cause] commits adultery"—repeated by Christ in Matthew 19:9. In those words, Christ propounded a general rule ["Whoever puts away his wife causes her to commit adultery, and he who marries her commits adultery"]; and then He put in an exception, namely, that for adultery, he may put her away, and such a one may marry again. As He there teaches the lawfulness of divorce on the ground of adultery, so He teaches it is lawful to marry again after such a divorce, without contracting the guilt of adultery.
In his comments on Matthew 19:9, rightly did John Owen (1616-1683) point out, "Hence it is evident, and is the plain sense of the words, that he who puts away his wife for fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. Therefore, the bond of marriage in that case is dissolved, and the person that put away his wife is at liberty to marry. While He denies putting away and marrying again for every cause, the exception of fornication allows both putting away and marrying again in that case. For an exception always affirms the contrary unto what is denied in the rule, whereto it is an exception; or denies what is affirmed in it in the case comprised in the exception. For every exception is a particular proposition contradictory to the general rule: so that when the one is affirmative, the other is negative; and on the contrary. The rule here in general is affirmative: he who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery; the exception is negative: he who puts away his wife for fornication and marries another does not commit adultery."
Consider the alternative. If the husband proves unfaithful to his marriage vows, is it in accord with God's revealed character of righteousness and mercy, to penalize the innocent wife to remain in the single state the rest of her life? If she has divorced her husband, does God now inflict upon her the sentence of perpetual widowhood because of the infidelity of her partner? For her to be deprived of her right, by the sin of another, is against the very law of nature, and in such case, it would lie within the power of every wicked husband to deprive his wife of her natural right. The right of divorce specified by Christ for the injured party to make use of is manifestly designed for his or her liberty and relief; but on the supposition that he or she may not marry again—then it would prove a snare and a yoke.
As John Owen also pointed out concerning such a supposition, "It may, and probably will, cast a man under the necessity of sinning. For suppose he has not the gift of celibacy, it is the express will of God that he should marry for his relief." Surely 1 Corinthians 7:2 and 9 make it clear that God would not have the injured one exposed to a life of immorality.
Above, we have said, that to make 1 Corinthians 7:15 mean that desertion severs the marriage tie, sets the apostle at direct variance with the ringing declaration of his Master; and so far as we are concerned, that single consideration settles the question, and compels us to reject the common interpretation of that verse. The words of Christ are too plain to be misunderstood: "But I say unto you [against all who aver otherwise], That whoever shall put away his wife, except [only] for the cause of fornication [adultery], causes her to commit adultery [should she cohabit with any other man]: and whoever shall marry her that is divorced [on any other ground] commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32). He repeats the same thing in Matthew 19:9.
Christ is both the Prophet and the Head of His Church, and beyond His authoritative decision, there is no appeal. But again, the popular view of 1 Corinthians 7:15 is entirely against the scope and method of the passage in which it occurs. In the preceding paragraphs, we have been at some pains to make clear Paul's line of thought therein, and have considered, first, his directions unto those who were contemplating a divorce (1 Corinthians 7:10-11), affirming that being married unto an idolater did not constitute a ground for such. And second, that such a situation did not even call for a separation (1 Corinthians 7:12-14).
Thus, to regard verse 15 as treating of something which supplied cause for a divorce, is to suppose the apostle guilty of a literary lapse, and what is worse, make verse 15 flatly contradict what he said in verse 11. But the apostle is to be charged with no such confusion as that: it is the minds of his expositors which are befogged. In verse 15, Paul does not go back to the matter dealt with in verses 10 and 11—but instead, continues and completes the subject under discussion in verses 12 to 14. The question resolved in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 is: Does a Christian married to a heathen call for a separation, as is clear from the apostle's "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord"—that is Christ Himself had given out no decision thereon. In verses 12 and 13, orders were given that where the unbelieving partner is willing for the Christian mate to continue cohabiting, there must be no separation. In verse 14, he amplifies that injunction. First, by showing that a separation is needless; and second, that it would be disastrous for the children.
Then in verse 15, he contemplates the other alternative, namely, Suppose the idolater is unwilling for the Christian mate to remain—then what shall the latter do? Most probably there were cases where a devout heathen was bitterly opposed to Christianity, and therefore, violently hostile to the idea of continuing to live with a husband or wife who had become an avowed Christian. When this was the case, and no appeal of either reason or affection had any effect—then what policy ought the believing partner to adopt? That is the question to which the apostle here furnishes answer, nor does there appear to us the least ambiguity in his language. "But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart" (1 Corinthians 7:15). If he has deliberately deserted you because of a difference of religion, you must bow to the will of God. If it has not pleased Him to subdue the prejudice of your husband and soften his heart toward you—then you must acquiesce with the divine providence. The onus rests upon him, and you must accept the situation with good grace.
"A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases" is explained by the words that immediately follow: "but God has called us to peace." In such a case, the believing wife is not to have recourse unto litigation and insist that the deserter be compelled by law to return unto her. The Christian wife is under no moral bonds to pursue her husband into the courts and demand that he make provision for her support, for that would be to follow a policy the very reverse of that "peace" which God has enjoined upon His children (Romans 12:18, 14:19; Heb 12:14).
Believers are the sons "of peace" (Luke 10:6), followers of the Prince of peace, and where no biblical principle is involved, they must avoid all contention and strife. Not a word does the apostle say in 1 Corinthians 7:15 about desertion or dissolving the marriage tie; still less that in such a case, the believer is free to marry again—that is man's presumptuous addition to the Word of God. Furthermore, that which immediately follows militates against such an idea. "For what know you, O wife, whether you shall save your husband? or how know you, O man, whether you shall save your wife?" (1 Corinthians 7:16). The opening "for" obviously has the force of "because" and introduces an important consideration to deter from all precipitate and extreme action. Unmistakably, it makes directly against the erroneous view taken of the preceding verse, for if the wife has divorced the husband, what hope could there be of God making use of her in winning him!
Verse 17 supplies an additional reason why neither divorce nor separation should be insisted upon: "But as God has distributed to every man, as the Lord has called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I [proving it was far more than a mere personal advice which the apostle was here offering!] in all churches." Paul was averse from breaking up the marital relation or any social position the Christian had occupied before conversion. Christianity is not a revolutionary and disorganizing element—but is designed to promote the general good. Loyalty to Christ does not forbid—but requires, husbands and wives to dwell together in peace, servants to obey their masters, subjects to honor the king. It is little to be wondered at that the profane world now entertains such lax views on the sanctity of marriage, when so many professing Christians advocate such an anti-Scriptural sentiment as the permissibility of divorce, merely for desertion.
It is greatly to be regretted that so many good men during the last three centuries taught that error, for they but paved the way for the well-near total moral breakdown which prevails today. When the leaders of Christendom sowed such seed, no other harvest could be expected. Better taught were the early Puritans. One equal in spirituality and scholarship to any member of the Westminster Assembly wrote fifty years earlier, "A man with a good conscience cannot give a bill of divorcement for any cause but adultery, and therefore, those laws which permit divorce for other causes are greatly faulty before God. If any should ask whether men's laws may not make more causes of divorce, than this one? I answer, No, for marriage is not a mere civil thing—but partly spiritual and divine, and therefore, God only has power to appoint the beginning, the continuance, and the end thereof." William Perkins (1558-1602), 1587.
Turning now to the last division of our subject. When the marriage bond has been broken by one party—is the innocent one, after a divorce has been obtained, free—in the sight of God, we mean—to marry again? Or is he or she shut up unto a life of celibacy? This question need not detain us very long—yet it is one that calls for a brief consideration at least, for Christendom by no means returns a uniform answer thereto. Probably many of our readers are aware that one of the errors of the Mother of harlots concerning marriage is that it is unlawful for a man who has repudiated his wife for adultery to marry again. Nor is that view entirely peculiar to Romanists, for some Protestants have entertained the same idea, being misled by our Lord's words in Mark 10:11, "Whoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commits adultery against her," regarding that as an unqualified and absolute restriction. But that is a mistake, through failing to read this verse in the light of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.
Scripture must be explained by Scripture, and briefer statements read in the light of fuller ones, and never must one be pitted against the other. Particularly is this the case with the first three Gospels; parallel passages should be consulted, and the shorter one read in the light of the longer one. Thus, when Peter asked Christ, "How often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times?" our Lord's answer "Until seventy times seven" (Matthew 18:21-22) must not be taken to signify that we are to condone wrongs and exercise grace at the expense of righteousness, for He had just previously said, "If your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone: if he shall hear [heed] you, you have gained your brother" (Matthew 18:15). No, rather, must His language in Matthew 18:22 be interpreted by His amplified declaration in Luke 17:3-4, "If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to you, saying, I repent—you shall forgive him"! God Himself does not forgive us, until we repent (Acts 2:38; 3:19). While we must not entertain any bitterness or malice in our hearts against those who wrong us—yet not until they acknowledge their offence are we to fellowship with them as if no offence had been committed. So, too, in order to obtain a right conception of the great commission which the Redeemer has given to His ministers, we need to bring all three accounts thereof together, and not confine ourselves unto only one of them: "That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name" (Luke 24:47) is equally essential as bidding sinners, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 16:31).
Thus with the matter we are now discussing: Mark 10:11 is to be interpreted by Matthew 5:32: "Whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whoever shall marry her that is divorced [for any other cause] commits adultery"—repeated by Christ in Matthew 19:9. In those words, Christ propounded a general rule ["Whoever puts away his wife causes her to commit adultery, and he who marries her commits adultery"]; and then He put in an exception, namely, that for adultery, he may put her away, and such a one may marry again. As He there teaches the lawfulness of divorce on the ground of adultery, so He teaches it is lawful to marry again after such a divorce, without contracting the guilt of adultery.
In his comments on Matthew 19:9, rightly did John Owen (1616-1683) point out, "Hence it is evident, and is the plain sense of the words, that he who puts away his wife for fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. Therefore, the bond of marriage in that case is dissolved, and the person that put away his wife is at liberty to marry. While He denies putting away and marrying again for every cause, the exception of fornication allows both putting away and marrying again in that case. For an exception always affirms the contrary unto what is denied in the rule, whereto it is an exception; or denies what is affirmed in it in the case comprised in the exception. For every exception is a particular proposition contradictory to the general rule: so that when the one is affirmative, the other is negative; and on the contrary. The rule here in general is affirmative: he who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery; the exception is negative: he who puts away his wife for fornication and marries another does not commit adultery."
Consider the alternative. If the husband proves unfaithful to his marriage vows, is it in accord with God's revealed character of righteousness and mercy, to penalize the innocent wife to remain in the single state the rest of her life? If she has divorced her husband, does God now inflict upon her the sentence of perpetual widowhood because of the infidelity of her partner? For her to be deprived of her right, by the sin of another, is against the very law of nature, and in such case, it would lie within the power of every wicked husband to deprive his wife of her natural right. The right of divorce specified by Christ for the injured party to make use of is manifestly designed for his or her liberty and relief; but on the supposition that he or she may not marry again—then it would prove a snare and a yoke.
As John Owen also pointed out concerning such a supposition, "It may, and probably will, cast a man under the necessity of sinning. For suppose he has not the gift of celibacy, it is the express will of God that he should marry for his relief." Surely 1 Corinthians 7:2 and 9 make it clear that God would not have the injured one exposed to a life of immorality.