“Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder… Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so… 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.”
Mt. 19:6-9
.
.
Subsection
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles
Books
Quotes
Historical
Biblio
Latin & French
Dissolubleness of Marriage Apart from Adultery or Desertion
Wife can Divorce Husband
Separation within Marriage
Grounds for Divorce?
. Defense of WCF
. Threat on One’s Life
. Abuse
. Communicable: Disease
. Religion & Ezra sending away Heathen Wives
May Guilty Party Remarry? 8
.
Articles
Early Church
Tertullian – Contra Marcion, bk. 4
Basil – Epistles
Chrysostom – Homily 17 in Homilies
Epiphanius – Pannarium
.
1500’s
Calvin, John
on Mt. 5:31-32 in Commentary on Mt. 5
on Mt. 19:1-10 in Commentary on Mt. 19
Bucer, Martin – On the Reign of Christ in Melanchthon & Bucer, tr. Satre & Pauck in The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 19 (1550; 1557; London: SCM Press LTD, 1969), bk. 2 and Bucer, The Judgment of Martin Bucer concerning Divorce, written to Edward VI, in his Second Book of the Kingdom of Christ, and now Englished… tr. John Milton (London: Simmons, 1644)
19. ‘Whether it may be permitted that the promise of marriage may be rescinded before it is fulfilled [Yes]’
…
22. Of full divorce, what the ancient Churches have thought
…
24. Who of the ancient Fathers have granted marriage after divorce
25. The words of our Lord, and of the Holy Ghost by the Apostle Paul concerning Divorce are explained
26. That God in his law did not only grant, but also command divorce to certain men
27. That what the Lord permitted and commanded to his ancient people concerning divorce, belongs also to Christians
28. That our Lord Christ intended not to make new Laws of marriage and divorce, or of any civil matters
29. ‘It is wicked to strain the words of Christ beyond their intent’ Latin
30. That all places of Scripture about the same thing are to be joined and compared, to avoid Contradictions
31. ‘Whether the Lord in his words which the evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke record allowed final divorce because of fornication’ Latin
32. ‘A manifest adultress ought to be divorced and cannot be retained in marriage by any true Christian’ Latin
33. ‘Adultery must be punished by death’ Latin
34. ‘Whether it is permissible for wives to leave their adulterous husbands and to marry someone else’ Latin
35. Places in the Writings of the Apostle Paul touching divorce explained
36. That although it seem in the Gospel as if our Savior granted divorce only for adultery, yet in very deed He granted it for other causes also
37. For what causes divorce is permitted by the civil Law
38. An exposition of those places wherein God declares the nature of holy wedlock
39. The properties of a true and Christian marriage, more distinctly repeated
40. Whether those crimes recited Ch. 37 out of the civil law dissolve matrimony in Gods account
41. Whether the husband or wife deserted may marry to another
42. ‘Incurable inability to perform the duties of marriage is a just ground for divorce’ Latin
43. That to grant divorce for all the causes which have been hitherto brought, disagrees not from the words of Christ naming only the cause of adultery
44. ‘To those who are legally divorced a second marriage ought to be permitted’ Latin
…
47. ‘Conclusion of the Entire Tract on Marriage’
Bucer argued his positions against a background where in England both the State and Church did not necessarily allow divorce, even for adultery. John Milton (1608-1674) translated this work to support advocating for, with relation to his own marriage, divorce for reasons beyond adultery. Bucer held and argued:
(1) Engagement promises (contra Romanism) could be broken for just reason, possibly with penalties,
(2) Divorce is properly a function of the political power, not the Church,
(3) The divorce regulations of the Old Testament continue unchanged into the New Testament,
(4) Mal. 2:14-15, an ambiguous and controverted passage, commands divorce in certain cases
(5) an adulterer ought to be divorced
(6) persons may divorce due to desertion, impotency, severe communicable diseases (leprosy), the spouse being a witch, a murderer, a kidnapper, physical abuse, if the wife favor thieves and robbers, “is desirous of feasting with strangers, the husband not knowing or not willing, if she lodge forth without a just and probable cause, or frequent theaters and sights, he forbidding, if she be privy with those that plot against the State, or if she deal falsely, or offer blows,” if he “frequent the company of lewd women in her sight,” and when the fundamentals of marriage, including a healthy and beneficial relationship, are absent, with mutual consent, or possibly without it.
(7) both the innocent and guilty divorced may remarry,
(8) and that numerous of the Fathers, either implicitly or explicitly, supported numerous of these positions.
While Bucer makes a suprisingly strong argument for his position, yet he does not do justice to the great breadth of liberty for divorce in Dt. 24:1-4 being said by Jesus to have been tolerated due to the hardness of the peoples’ heart (Mt. 19:3-10). Given the stated contrast between Dt. 24’s prescription and that of Jesus (Mt. 5:31-32), Jesus’s teaching in the Gospels must be more stringent than the former, only allowing divorce in that passage for adultery. This one pillar overturns Bucer’s view, though he says many things worthy of consideration.
Marlorat, Augustine
A Catholic & Ecclesiastical Exposition of the Holy Gospel after St. Mathew, Gathered out of All the Singular & Approved Divines… (1570) Abbreviations Marlorat’s commentary on Mark 10:2-12 says to see his commentary on Matthew.
on Mt. 5:31-32, pp. 101-102 on Mt. 5
on Mt. 19:3-10, pp. 415-22 on Mt. 19
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – The Common Places… (d. 1562; London, 1583), pt. 2
10, ‘Of Divorcements & Putting Away of Wives’ 457-67
11. ‘Of Whoredom, Fornication & Adultery’ 468
‘Of Bastards’ 475
‘Of Adultery’ 478
‘Of the Punishments of Adultery’ 482
‘Whether the man or woman do sin more grievously in adultery’ 489
‘Of Reconciliation of man and wife after adultery committed’ 495
Polanus, Amandus – The Substance of Christian Religion Soundly Set forth in Two Books, by Definitions & Partitions... (London, 1595), pp. 261-65
‘…Now Concerning the Duties of Wedlock or Marriage [Including Divorce]’
.
1600’s
Bucanus, William – Institutions of Christian Religion… (London, 1606)
12th Common Place, ‘Of Marriage’
Whether may a man marry another wife, his first wife being dead?
What is contrary to this doctrine?, p. 118
13th Common Place, ‘Of Divorce’, pp. 129-38
Table of Contents
What is the reason of the name of repudium, ‘refusal’ and divortium, ‘divorce’?
Is there any difference between repudium and divortium?
Whether marriage is to be broken off by mutual consent, as it is by consent contracted?
In what cases is repudium used, or spousals dissolved?
How many ways is consummated marriage broken?
For what causes is marriage declared, ipso jure, to be none?
When is the fault in the consent or contract of marriage?
When is the consent filthy?
What contract is unjust?
What fault is that between the persons which makes marriage, ipso jure to be none?
How many ways is marriage made said to be dissolved?
Does it agree with God’s Law for a man to put away his wife?
May lawful marriage then be broken?
What are the causes why it may be broken?
May lawful marriage then be separated?
What are the causes why it may be separated?
What is adultery?
Is separation or divorcement to be used in all cases of adultery?
Is the innocent party bound to produce the offender?
May the innocent receive the offending party repenting unto favor again?
Whereas Christ names adultery to be the only cause of divorce, how shall we reconcile Paul, who does allow divorce for desertion?
What kind of desertion means Paul?
But how is the desertion understood to be made malicious and stubborn?
What if it be not known in what place the party, thus departing, is?
What is to be done when the one is absent, either through war, travail, captivity, or other such like cause?
What if he happen to return again which was thought dead?
Does barrenness break off matrimony?
Is divorcement to be permitted for offences, or for civil death, as to be condemned to the galleys or mines, or banishment, or else perpetual imprisonment, or else by reason of some disease fallen into after the consummation of marriage, or for any other the like causes?
What is to be done, think you, if either of them, being become an ungodly apostate or obstinate heretic endeavor to draw and compel the other into the same apostasy and impiety or into any other crime?
What if the magistrate neglect his duty?
Has the wife the like right against her husband that he has against her in suing for divorcement?
By whom ought the divorcement to be made?
What contraries this doctrine?
Ames, William – pt. 2, ch. 19, ‘Of Chastity’, sections 36-38 & 48-50 in The Marrow of Sacred Divinity (1623)
Wolleb, Johannes – Bk. 2, ch. 11, ‘Of Virtues & Works Belonging to the 7th Commandment’, section XXV, pp. 404-5 in Abridgment of Christian Divinity (1626)
Ward, Richard – Theological Questions, Dogmatical Observations & Evangelical Essays, upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to St. Matthew… (London, 1640),
on Mt. 5:31-32, pp. 227-32
on Mt. 19:3-6 & 7-9, pp. 231-33
Ward (1601-1684) was educated at Cambridge, England and St. Andrews, Scotland, and was a reformed minister in London.
** “A huge mass of comment, in which are thousands of good things mostly set forth by way of question and answer. Few could ever read it through; but to a wise minister it would be a mine of wealth.” – Spurgeon
Cartwright, Thomas – pp. 8-14 of Helps for Discovery of the Truth in Point of Toleration… Here also by the way is Laid down his Judgment in the Case of Divorce, & that the Party-Innocent may Marry Again (London, 1648)
Dickson, David – Matthew (1651; Quinta Press, 2009)
on Mt. 5:31-32, pp. 66-67
on Mt. 19:1-10, pp. 243-5
Baxter, Richard – ‘Cases About Divorce & Separation’ appended to ch. 9 in A Christian Directory… (London, 1673), pt. 2, ‘Christian Economics’, pp. 535-42
Table of Contents
1. Is it lawful for husband and wife to be long absent from each other? and how long, and in what cases? 535
2. May husband and wife be separated by the bare command of princes? If they make a law that in certain cases they shall part: as suppose it to ministers, judges or soldiers? 535
3. May ministers leave their wives to go abroad to preach the Gospel? 535
4. May one leave a wife to save his life, in case of personal persecution or danger? 535
5. May husband and wife part by mutual consent, if they find it to be for the good of both? 535
6. May not the relation itself be dissolved by mutual free consent, so that they may marry others? 536
7. Does adultery dissolve the bond of marriage or not? 536
8. But is not the injured party at all obliged to separate, but left free? 536
9. Is it only the privilege of the man that he may put away an adulterous wife? or also of the woman, to depart from an adulterous husband? 536
10. May the husband put away the wife without the magistrate, or the wife depart from the husband without a public legal divorce or license? 537
11. Is not the case of sodomy [homosexuality] or buggery [beastiality] a ground for warrantable divorce, as well as adultery? [Yes] 537
12. What if both parties commit adultery? May either of them put away the other, or depart; or rather must they forgive each other? 537
13. But what if one do purposely commit adultery [in order] to be separated from the other? 537
14. Does not infidelity dissolve the relation or obligation; seeing there is no communion between light and darkness, a believer and an infidel? 537
15. Does not the desertion of one party disoblige the other? 537
16. What if a man or wife know that the other in hatred does really intend by poison or other murder, to take away their life? May they not depart?
17. If there be but a fixed hatred of each other, is it inconsistent with the ends of Marriage? And is parting lawful in such a case? 538
18. What if a woman have a Husband that will not suffer her to read the Scriptures, nor go to God’s worship, public or private, or that so beats or abuses her, as that it cannot be expected that human nature should be in such a case kept fit for any holy action: or if a man have a wife that will scold at him when he is praying or instructing his family, and make it impossible to him to serve God with freedom, or peace and comfort? 538
19. May one part from a husband or wife that has the leprosy, or that has the French pox by their adulterous practices, when the innocent person’s life is endangered by it? 539
20. Who be they that may or may not marry again when they are parted? 539-42
Durham, James – pp. 354-55 & 358 of ‘The Seventh Command’ in A Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments… (London, 1675)
Gell, Robert – Notes & Observations upon Mt. 5:31-32 in Gell’s Remains, or, Several Select Scriptures of the New Testament Opened & Explained… (London, 1676), pp. 98-108
Gell (1595-1665) was a reformed, Anglican chaplain and clergyman.
Poole, Matthew – on Mt. ch. 19 (see vv. 3-9) in English Annotations on the Holy Bible
.
1700’s
Doddridge, Philip – Lectures, pt. 3, proposition 6
Dwight, Timothy – Sermons
.
1800’s
American Quarterly Review 2:70
Bibliotheca Sacra 23:384
British & Foreign Review 7:269
International Magazine 5:198
Investigator 2:146
Pamphleteer 18:153
Westminster Review 42:187
Alexander, J.A.
The Gospel According to Matthew Explained (NY: 1861)
Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (1864; Zondervan, n.d.)
.
1900’s
Murray, John – ‘Divorce & Remarriage’ on Mt. 19:9 18 paragraphs
Murray was an early professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, East.
.
2000’s
Schwertley, Brian – Ch. 17, ‘The Third Antithesis—Christ’s Teaching on Divorce’ 12 pp. in The Sermon on the Mount: A Reformed Exposition
Heth, William A. – ‘Jesus on Divorce: How My Mind Has Changed’ Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (2002), pp. 4-29
Heth has been a professor of New Testament and Greek at Taylor University and has written extensively on the issue of divorce and
remarriage. He and Gordon Wehnham, in a published book, defended the minority evangelical view, that though divorce may be allowed in certain limited cases, yet remarriage is never allowed.
After holding to such for many years, Heth changed his view to the majority evangelical view, namely that remarriage is allowed subsequent to adultery or desertion by a non-Christian spouse. This article explains the reasons for his change of mind. Contextual and exegetical factors predominate.
Kostenberger, Andreas – pp. 258-61 of ‘Marriage & Family in the New Testament’ in Marriage & Family in the Biblical World (IVP, 2003)
Kostenberger on these pages critiques John Piper’s erroneous view in overly restricting the grounds of divorce and remarriage.
.
Books
1500’s
Bucer, Martin – The Judgement of Martin Bucer Concerning Divorce, written to Edward VI in his Second Book of the Kingdom of Christ [chs. 15-47], & Now Englished, wherein a Late Book Restoring the Doctrine & Discipline of Divorce is Here Confirmed & Justified by the Authority of Martin Bucer, to the Parliament of England trans. John Milton (London, 1644) 26 pp. EEBO
In the Preface, Milton defends his own (erroneous) treatise on divorce.
“Martin Bucer, in the tract he addressed to Edward the Sixth… employs a whole chapter to prove from the best authorities as well of the primitive fathers, as of the doctrines of the Christian church, that a manifest adultress ought to be divorced, and cannot lawfully be retained in marriage by a Christian [contra the later Anglican Church].” – Kenrick, p. 4
.
1600’s
Rainolds, John – Judgment of the Reformed Churches that a Man may Lawfully not only put away his Wife for her Adultery, but also marry another (London: Crook, 1652) 78 pp. ToC
.
1700’s
Ochino, Bernardino
Dialogues, trans. Osborn
Ochino (1487-1564) was Itallian. He was raised a Romanist, but became reformed and was a reformer.
.
1900’s
Murray, John – Divorce Buy (P&R, 1961) 128 pp.
Murray, the early Westminster Seminary professor, in this solid book, argues exegetically on the topic, inline with the position of the Westminster Confession.
.
Quotes
1600’s
The Leiden Synopsis
vol. 3 (Brill, 2020), Disputation 47, ‘On the Five False Sacraments of the Papists’, ‘Marriage’, ‘Corollaries’, pp. 370-1
“2. We affirm that in the case of adultery or the wrongful desertion of an unbeliever the marriage is dissolved, even as far as the bond is concerned, in such a way that once the divorce has lawfully taken place, the innocent party should not be prevented from marrying.
3. And we deny that a marriage insofar as the bond, or the bed or cohabitation is concerned, can be dissolved by a vow or by entry upon a religious order (as they call it).”
.
Francis Turretin
Institutes (P&R), vol. 2, 11th Topic, 18th Question, the 7th Commandment, section 9, p. 123
“…since it [marriage] ought to be an inseparable connection, not only of bodies, but also of souls and of property to be regularly dissolved by death alone (Rom. 7:2, 3).”
.
Johann H. Heidegger
The Concise Marrow of Theology trans. Casey Carmichael (RHB, 2019), Locus 14, ‘On the Decalogue’, section 25, p. 102
“Nonetheless, there can be just causes for divorce: malicious desertion of the spouse (1 Cor. 7:15) and adultery (Deut. 24:1; Matt. 19:9).”
.
Historical
In Church History
Article
Snuth, David L. – ‘Divorce & Remarriage From the Early Church To John Wesley’ Trinity Journal (of TEDS) 11.2 (Fall 1990), pp. 131-42
.
On the Reformation & America
Article
Areen, Judith – ‘Uncovering the Reformation Roots of American Marriage & Divorce Law’ Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, vol. 26:1 (2014), pp. 30-90
.
In Reformation Germany
Witte, Jr., John – ‘The Reformation of Marriage Law in Martin Luther’s Germany: Its Significance Then & Now’ Journal of Law & Religion, vol. 4, pp. 293-351
.
On Calvin & Geneva
Books
Kingdon, Robert M. – Adultery & Divorce in Calvin’s Geneva in Harvard Historical Studies (Harvard Univ. Press, 1995) 224 pp. ToC
eds. Kingdon, Robert M. & John Witte Jr. – Sex, Marriage & Family Life in John Calvin’s Geneva: Courtship, Engagement & Marriage in Religion, Marriage & Family Series Pre (Eerdmans, 2005) 545 pp. ToC
.
On the Church of England
Kenrick, William – Observations, Civil & Canonical, on the Marriage Contract, as Entered into Conformably to the Rites & Ceremonies of the Church of England (London, 1775)
Kenrick (1725?-1779)
“…it was the opinion of the church of England, at the commencement of the reign of Queen Eli|zabeth, that, after a divorce for adultery, the parties might marry again. It is true that the despotic tribunal, the Star-Chamber, whose very name is odious to the ears of a free-born Englishman, did reverse this opinion… But, what was this less than acting against the spirit, reversing the very principles, of the Reformation; and recurring back again to the usages and practices of popery?” – p. 2
“Now, if these authorities, strengthened by those of the most rigid divines and moralists among the first reformers, such as Wyckliff, Luther, Melancthon, Erasmus, and a long train of divines, civilians and canonists, down to [Hugo] Grotius himself; I say, if these authorities will justify the setting aside that of Justinian and the Popish decretals, in favor of Valentinian and Theodosius, supported by almost all the primitive Fathers, the modern [Anglican] practice of refusing a divorce in cases of adultery must be allowed to be a barbarous and oppressive instance of the remains of priestcraft and popery…” – pp. 6-7
.
On Scotland
Steuart of Pardovan, Walter – Title 5, ‘Of the Solemnization of Marriage’, sections 11-12 in Collections & Observations Concerning the Worship, Discipline & Government of the Church of Scotland… (1709), pp. 111-12
.
Bibliography
Malcom, Howard – ‘Divorce’ in Theological Index… (Boston, 1868), pp. 153-4
.
Latin Articles
1500’s
Erasmus – Opera
Bucer, Martin
‘On Divorce’, pp. 147a-150b in Continual Expositions of the Four Holy Evangelists, in which are Interspersed Pure Theological Common Places (Herwagen, 1527; 1553), on Mt. 19:1-9
On the Kingdom of our Savior Jesus Christ… (Basil, 1557), bk. 2
15. ‘The Seventh Law: the Sanctification & Regulation of Marriage’ 126
16. ‘What must be established concerning the contracting and entering of holy marriage’ 127
17. ‘Which persons it is proper to join in matrimony’ 127
18. ‘Marriages should not be held valid which are contracted without the consent of those who have power over the ones who make the contract, or without suitable advisers’ 129
19. ‘Whether it may be permitted that the promise of marriage may be rescinded before it is fulfilled’ 133
20. ‘The celebration of nuptials’ 134
21. ‘The preservation of holy marriage’ 135
22. ‘What the ancient churches thought about legitimate divorce’ 136
23. ‘The ancient fathers allowed marriage even after the vow of celibacy’ 139
24. ‘Who of the ancient fathers allowed marriage after divorce’ 142
25. ‘A discussion of the sayings of our Lord & of the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul concerning divorce’ 144
26. ‘God in his Law did not only grant, but also command, divorce to certain men’ 146
27. ‘What the Lord permitted and commanded to his ancient people concerning divorce also applies to Christians’ 146
28. ‘Our Lord Christ intended not to make new laws of marriage and divorce, or of any civil matters’ 148
29. ‘It is wicked to strain the words of Christ beyond their intent’ 149
30. ‘All narrations of the Gospels must be connected with one another’ 149
31. ‘Whether the Lord in his words which the evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke record allowed final divorce because of fornication’ 153
32. ‘A manifest adultress ought to be divorced and cannot be retained in marriage by any true Christian’ 155
33. ‘Adultery must be punished by death’ 156
34. ‘Whether it is permissible for wives to leave their adulterous husbands and to marry someone else’ 160
35. ‘An exposition of the words of the Holy Spirit concerning divorce given to us in writing through the apostle Paul’ 162
36. ‘Although in the Gospels our Lord appears to allow divorce only in case of adultery, He nevertheless allowed divorce also for other causes’ 166
37. ‘To which men and women divorce is granted in the code of civil law’ 163
38. ‘An exposition of the those passages of Holy Scripture wherein God explains to us the nature of holy wedlock’ 169
39. ‘A definition of the characteristics of holy wedlock’ 173
40. ‘Whether the crimes listed in civil law [ch. 37] dissolve matrimony in the sight of God’ 174
41. ‘Whether a deserted husband or wife may marry someone else’ 178
42. ‘Incurable inability to perform the duties of marriage is a just ground for divorce’ 180
43. ‘To grant divorce for all the causes which have so far been listed agrees with the words Christ has spoken against divorce’ 183
44. ‘To those who are legally divorced a second marriage ought to be permitted’ 187
45. ‘There are some men so destined for marriage by the Lord that it is repugnant to God’s decree that anyone should forbid them marriage for any reason’ 188
46. ‘An exposition of the words of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 7) in praise of celebacy’ 191
47. ‘The Conclusion of the entire tract on marriage’ 194
Beza, Theodore
on Mt. 19:5-9 in Annotations on the New Testament of Jesus Christ our Lord… ([Geneva] 1598)
Theological Tracts… (Geneva, 1570), vol. 2
1. ‘Of Polygamy & Divorces’, pp. 1-64
2. ‘Of Repudiations & Divorces’, pp. 64-138
Szegedin Pannonius, Stephan – ‘On Divorce, etc.’, pp. 347-69 in Common Places of Pure Theology… (Basil, 1585/93), II. ‘Of Man’, ‘Things of Piety which are Required from Men’
Aretius, Benedict – Locus 167, ‘On Adultery’ & Locus 168, ‘On Divorce’, pp. 503-8 in Sacred Problems of Theology: Common Places of the Christian Religion Methodically Explicated (Geneva, 1589; Bern, 1604)
Polanus, Amandus – ‘…What follows is on the Duties of Marriage’, ‘Thus it ought to be in Implementing the Way of Proceeding in the Case of Adultery; what follows is the Way of Proceeding in the Case of Desertion’ & ‘…Now we must Speak of the Time after which Another Wedlock may be Granted to the Innocent Person’, pp. 331-33 in The Divisions of Theology Framed according to a Natural Orderly Method (Basil, 1590; Geneva, 1623), bk. 2, ‘Of Good Works’
.
1600’s
Housonus, Johann – Uxore dimissa propter Fornicationem, aliam non licet superinducere (Oxford, 1602)
Chamier, Daniel – Bk. 18, ‘Of the Grades of Impediments to Marriage, of Free-Persons & of Repudiations’, pp. 654-705 in Panstratiae Catholicae, or a Body of the Controversies of Religion Against the Papists (Geneva, 1626), vol. 3 (Man), ‘Laws Concerning Marriages’ ToC
Voet, Gisbert – Ecclesiastical Politics (Amsterdam, 1663-1676), vol. 2, pt. 1, bk. 3, ‘Of Occasional Practices & Pseudo-Practices’, Tract 1, ‘of Marrying’
Section 2, of Marriage
5. Of Marriages Following, or Remarriage; of the Marriage of Cousins and Certain others which Human Law has Prohibited, though in Conscience they are not Unlawful 95
Section 3, Of that which is Against Marriage
1. Of Lawful & Unlawful Celibacy 149
2. Of Aggravations to Marriages, namely: an Immature Age, a Natural or Accidental Defect, Incest, the Agreed [or Fitting] Dissent of Parents, Difference of Religion, the Corruption of Virginity & a Fault in Promises, Stipulations or other Conditions 151
3. Of Rejections & Divorces, which, of Themselves Release the Bond of Marriage 170
4. Of Malicious Desertion 188
5. Of Various Marriage Incompatibilities, the Contempt and Condemnation of Marriage, of Having Multiple Wives, a Changing [Giving, Selling, etc.] of the Same, a Barren Marriage, Incest, an Abominable Confusion of the Sexes, Polygamy, a Rendering of Service, Concubinage, Promiscuous Desire [Vaga Libidine], Perfidious Repudiations, Divorces, Desertions & of Marriages and Promiscuous Desire in the Future World 197
Buxtorf, Jr., Johann
pp. 78-165 of A Dissertation on Espousals & Divorces, to which is Annexed a Diatribe of Isaac Abarbanel on the Punishment of being Cut Off, which is Frequently in the Law [i.e. Num. 15:30] & in this Matter Mentioned (Basil, 1652) 195 pp. Scriputre Index Abarbanel’s piece starts on p. 169.
Buxtorf, Jr. (1599-1664) was a reformed professor of Hebrew, Old Testament and theology at Basel. Abarbanel (1437-1509) was a Portugese, Jewish commentator and philosopher.
Table of Contents
Part 1
Of Repudiations, or Divorces, 71 78
Origin of Divorces, 72-71 79
The Form, 74-84 80
Persons, 85-87 85
Causes of Divorce, 88-98 88
Consequences, 99-100 98
Part 2
Whether Christ & Moses are contrary to the other regarding the Doctrine of Divorces, & in what way are they able to be reconciled?, 1-4 106
Whether there is a contradiction between Moses & Christ regarding the cause to be assinged for divorces?, 5 115
Why or in what way Christ permits a wife to be sent away in marriage in the case of fornication or adultery, since in this way a woman by the Law was guilty of death?, 6 123
But in what way was a married man, with respect to an adulteress saved from the application of death by the Law, able to justly to dismiss his wife by a libel of repudiation?, 7 124
Whether therefore, as some say, Christ in the case of adultery may approve of the practice of the Jews that wives be repudiated at pleasure, without the knowledge of the cause by a judiciary?, 8 125
…
A Dissertation on Weddings [Sponsalibus] and Divorces, to which is Appended a Diatribe of Isaac Abarbenel on the Punishment of Destruction [Excidii], which is Frequently Mentioned in the Law and in this Material (Basil: Heirs of King Lewis, 1652)
Poole, Matthew – on Mt. 19:3-9 in Synopsis of the Interpreters & Commentators of Sacred Scripture Buy (Utrecht, 1686), vol. 4
Selden – Uxor Hebraica ex Talmudico
Peleus – de Dissolutione Matrimonii ex Causa Frigoris
Ugolini – Uxor Hebraea
.
French
Hotman – de la Dissolution du Marriage par L’impuissance
Tagereau – sur l’Impuissance
.
On the Dissolubleness of Marriage apart from Adultery or Desertion
1600’s
William Attersol
Commentary on Numbers, ch. 30, pp. 704-5
“We see this in marriage, published in the face of the Church, solemnized by consent of parties and parents, ratified by the action of the minister, and celebrated in the presence of many friends; the knot cannot be untied, no not by agreement of the parents, of the parties, of the minister, of the friends, and of the whole congregation, because marriage is not of the nature of a civil contract, but God is a party and hath a special hand in it, and whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder, or separate again without his consent. (Mt. 19:6)”
.
Joseph Hall
Cases of Conscience Practically Resolved Containing a Decision of the Principal Cases of Conscience of Daily Concernment & Continual Use Amongst Men: Very Necessary for their Information & Direction in These Evil Times (London, 1654), 4th Decade, Case 2, ‘Whether Marriage Lawfully made may Admit of any Cause of Divorce, save only for the Violation of the Marriage Bed, by Fornication or Adultery?’, p. 303
“Lo, before ever there was father or mother or son in the world, God has appointed that the bonds betwixt husband and wife shall be more strait and indissoluble than betwixt the parent and child; and can any man be so unreasonable as to defend it lawful upon some unkind usages or thwartness of disposition, for a parent to abandon and forsake his child; or the son to cast off his parent? Much less therefore may it
be thus betwixt an husband and wife: They two are one flesh.
Behold here an union of God’s making: A man’s body is not more his own than his wife’s body is his: And will a man be
content to part easily with a piece of himself? Or can we think that God will endure an union made by Himself to be slightly dissolved? Or how is this bodily matrimony a lively image of the spiritual marriage betwixt Christ and his Church (who has said, ‘I will betroth thee unto me forever; Yea I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness and in judgment, and in loving kindness, and in mercies,’ Hos. 2:19), if upon small occasions it may be subject to utter dissolution?
Yea, what speak I of divinity? Even modest heathens would hiss this Libertinism off the stage…” – pp. 303-4
.
That a Wife can Divorce her Husband with Legitimate Grounds
This question is brought on by Dt. 24:1-4 and other passages.
.
Quotes
Order of
Hooper
Rutherford
.
1500’s
John Hooper
Original Letters relative to the English Reformation, ed. Hastings Robinson for the Parker Society (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1846), vol. 1, Letter 32, Hooper to Bullinger, p. 64
“You will learn from our brother, master Butler, by what circumstances I am hindered and with whom I have to contend within these two days on the subject of divorce. In the commentaries¹ which I lately wrote on the decalogue, I allowed both to the man and his wife an equal liberty of divorce on account of adultery, if they are disposed to use that liberty which Christ has permitted in the gospel of his Church, where the marriage contract is dissolved by adultery.
¹ See a Declaration of the ten holy Commandments of Almighty God, in Hooper’s early writings, Parker Society edition. The passage here referred to will be found in pp. 378, 379, where Hooper complains of the uncharitable construction put upon it.
My opponents allow the husband to divorce his wife by reason of adultery, and to marry another; but they do not allow the same liberty to the wife. In your next letter, as you love me, either confirm my opinion, or correct my error.”
.
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
Lex Rex... (1644; Edinburgh: Ogle, 1843), pp. 69-70
“So let the Prelate [John Maxwell] glory in his borrowed logic; he had it from Barclay [a Romanist]:
‘It is not in the power of the wife to repudiate her husband, though never so wicked. She is tied to him forever, and may not give to him a bill of divorcement, as by law the husband might give to her…’
Answer: …but a wife may divorce from her husband…”
.
On the Possibility of Physical Separation in Marriage when Justified
“And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.”
1 Cor. 7:10-11
.
Quote
1600’s
William Perkins
‘A Warning Against the Idolatry of the Last Times, & an Instruction touching Religious or Divine Worship’ in The Works (London: Legatt, 1626), vol. 1, p. 692
“Again, if the unbelieving party shall solicit the other and use all means, both fair and foul, to draw him or her to idolatry, the believing party in this case, may go aside for a time and omit the duty of marriage. For this is all one as if the idolatrous and unbelieving party should depart.
For indeed, that party is said to depart in whom the cause of departing is, as in the Church he is a schismatic in whom the cause of the schism is, and not always he that separates.”
.
What are Legitimate Grounds for Divorce?
.
A Brief Defense of the Westminster Confession
Travis Fentiman
.
The very specific and emphatic language of Westminster Confession of Faith, 24.6 no doubt took into consideration all other proposed circumstantial grounds for divorce, which were well known from history and had advocates in Westminster’s own day (such as in the Anglican Church and the civil law of England itself), and yet the Westminster Confession reaches the conclusion that only (1) adultery and (2) willful desertion, with qualification, are “cause sufficient for dissolving the bond of marriage”:
“Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments, unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage; yet nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage:[o]…
[o] Matt. 19:8,9. 1 Cor. 7:15. Matt. 19:6“
Note that Westminster had said in ch. 24.5 that adultery was grounds for the innocent party “to sue out a divorce,” yet Westminster does not use that language here in relation to willful desertion; rather, in the specified willful desertion the bond of marriage is dissolved. That which dissolves the bond, it would appear, may be the circumstantial “cause sufficient” itself, or the authorities, or both.
Westminster’s language does not appear to allow for dissolving the bond of marriage where there is a de facto, prolonged separation of indefinite and unknown measure, such as in the cases of a man lost at sea or taken prisoner in war. Besides men having sometimes returned from these conditions, they are not a willful desertion, but unwillful. In these cases, after a long period of time, the man might be considered by the civil government to be civilly dead, this respecting not only marriage but all other civil obligations. In such a case divorce would not be needed. It is odd Westminster does not explicitly speak of marriage ending at death, yet it assumes this in ch. 24.5, in a different case: “…as if the offending party were dead.”
Sometimes a threat on one’s life has been held to be grounds for divorce, as, it is argued, a greater danger or evil than adultery, or a substantial threat upon that which marriage presumes, even life itself, also warrants the dissolving of the marriage. However:
(1) Jesus must have known of such well-known issues in his context, and yet still speak exclusively (Mt. 19:9);
(2) Adultery is in its kind specific to the unique relation of marriage, relating to the highest consummation of that relationship, whereas other such proposed grounds for divorce, such as a threat on one’s life, etc., are not.¹
(3) A threat on one’s life and other such dangers and offenses, or crimes, may be warrant for separation for the time (for safety, by the 6th Commandment, though the two still be married, 1 Cor. 7:10-11) and the intervention of civil authorities and penalties.
(4) If prolonged jail time for a crime (such as over many years or a lifetime sentence) deprives the wife and possibly kids of the necessities of living, so far as the crime was voluntary, such might be considered a willful desertion.
¹ William Perkins: “it may be objected: if for adultery divorce may be made, why not for idolatry which is spiritual adultery? I answer that not any sin by itself, as it is a sin, not breaking the troth and bond of marriage, is the proper cause of a divorce; and not any kind of idolatry, but the sin of adultery breaks his troth.” ‘A Warning Against the Idolatry of the Last Times, & an Instruction touching Religious or Divine Worship’ in The Works (London: Legatt, 1626), vol. 1, p. 692
It may be objected that Jesus was not speaking without exception, as Paul adds another ground for divorce besides adultery in 1 Cor. 7:10-17 for a context that Jesus did not address, namely willful desertion due to one spouse in a gentile marriage becoming a Christian. Jesus spoke in the context of Israel where all were outwardly of the true religion, so such was not in his purview. Yet threats one one’s life, domestic abuse, etc. were in that Jewish context, and must have been well known (as evidence in the Talmud witnesses); hence they were in Jesus’s purview.
It should be noted further that Westminster does not say only willful desertion on religious grounds is warrant for divorce, but willful desertion unqualified. Jesus only spoke of what cause a man might “put away” his wife (Mt. 5:31-32); that is, He assumed the couple was together. He did not address what one should do when a spouse willfully leaves and never comes back. As for Paul, the case of willful desertion involves the whole marriage, in that marriage relation, being overturned; and a foundational principle Paul is operating by, 1 Cor. 7:15, applies not only to willful desertion for a religious cause, but for any cause.
In the case of one spouse acquiring a severe communicable disease (take leprosy for example), or other cases where the two may not be able to perform their conjugal duties (such as in the case of impotency, etc.), yet the essence of marriage (for example as argued by Francis Turretin) may still remain intact, namely an “undivided conjunction of life and unviolated faith” (Institutes, vol. 2, 13th Topic, 11th Question, section 25), albeit there may need to be some necessary physical precautions.
It may be objected that the other spouse may sexually burn (1 Cor. 7:9), and hence they should be free to remarry, as a purpose of marriage, as held throughout Church history, is to relieve this. Yet:
(1) It is one thing, not being married, to freely seek and enter marriage for this reason; yet it is another thing to be bound in marriage and to burn, where one is not free to dissolve that union already entered into. God may be entreated to provide more grace.
(2) No matter what view one takes in the many difficult cases of marriage matters, situations are always left where persons, married or single, might burn for prolonged periods, and must endure it by the call of providence. There is no getting around this in this fallen and difficult world.
(3) The case of leprosy (especially in Israel under the ceremonial laws), impotence, etc. were well known in Jesus’s context, and hence were in his purview. The Old Testament laws, while banning lepers, spoke nothing of the dissolution of their marriages.
In the case of insanity or permanent amnesia by one party:
(1) Much insanity, and even amnesia, is of degrees: it may not be total, and the sufferer may yet have the will to cleave unto their spouse, or be yet consenting to a de facto “undivided conjunction of life and unviolated faith”.
(2) Such cases are not willful desertion, as it likely has not been willful, and the person has not deserted, but is still present.
(3) There are many cases of persons deemed insane being lovingly taken care of, and married, with the exercise of that relationship, by their spouses.
(4) Jesus was well aware of cases of insanity as numerous are instanced in the Gospels. It is a tragedy, but not revealed grounds for divorce.
Marriage is a positive institition ordained by God, and does flow necessarily from nature as such. That is why God and his apostles may positively prescribe the limits of marriage and divorce (by their authority), whereas they are not known from nature’s light alone. This is great reason why grounds for divorce ought to be limited to those which have been specially revealed, and ought not be derived simply by inferences from natural principles.
The late Greg Bahnsen argued from Ex. 21:10-11 that a variety of lesser causes than adultery or willful desertion were sufficient to dissolve marriage (‘Theses on Divorce & Spousal Abuse’, 1984). The verses specifiy upon which grounds a concubine (see the context) may go out free from that relationship. Bahnsen’s argument is from the lesser to the greater: if it is the case for a concubine, how much more is it so for a wife. The verses say:
“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.”
If one argues literally and strictly from this text, then for a man that only diminishes by some degree the available food, clothing or frequency of sex with his wife, then his wife, from the lesser to the greater, may go out from the marriage free. But this is absurd and contrary to the foundational principles of marriage, namely of them being one flesh (Gen. 2:20-25).
Further:
(1) These verses constitute a judicial precept of Moses, set in the context of polygamy and concubinage (Bahnsen was the father of Theonomy). The judicial laws do not bind as judicial, and, the ones about such social sins as polygamy and concubinage, so far from being pure general equity, were permissive and regulatory in nature (and hence changeable), set for the good of that cultural context, and were not absolute moral precepts.
(2) The verses do not speak to the dissolution of marriage as such, but only of concubinage. The Old Testament, Jews and the ancient world in general recognized the difference between marriage and concubinage, holding the restictions about the one to be tighter, and the other lesser. What is true of regulations for concubinage need not, and presumably do not, apply to the stricter, proper marriage relation. Nor does Scripture in those verses, or any others, say that a wife might divorce over receiving less food, clothing or sex. The issue in Ex. 21 was treating vulnerable concubines fairly, not in making marital divorce promiscuous.
(3) Jesus in Israel was very aware of Ex. 21 and concubines, yet He did not grant divorce for such lesser cases.
Providing necessities for living cannot be of the essence of the marriage covenant, as there are times when a husband may not be able to do this due to providential factors, and yet the couple may still remain married. One example is of two slaves marrying where the necessities for living are being provided by the master for each individually, based on their own work. For a husband to refuse to provide living necessities for his wife (when he can and may be expected to) and yet he maintains other aspects of the marital relation, perhaps she can work and provide those expenses of herself. While this is a great moral crime, he being worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim. 5:8), there are other societal means by which this case can seek to be rectified. Depending on the case, especially if the wife does not have means to provide for herself or the children, this may be reckoned willful desertion.
Likewise, take a wife who is willing to dwell with her husband (1 Pet. 3:7), but utterly refuses conjugal relations with him (contra 1 Cor. 7:4-5). Yet:
(1) If such took away the essence of marriage, the marriage would be dissolved ipso facto, contra 1 Cor. 7:4-5, where the two are still married though one “defraud” the other in this way. That is, if such an action inherently dissolved the marriage, then no spouse could defraud the other, because they would not be spouses. Paul does not tell the couple they are no longer married, or should sue out a divorce, but instructs them in the Lord and seeks to rectify the problem.
(2) There are a number of other social means whereby this problem may be sought to be rectified, not excluding ecclesiastical and civil discipline.
(3) While a gross miscarriage is (likely) occuring, yet in her not departing there may be some hope for amendment and there is still, in some respect, an “undivided conjunction of life and unviolated faith,” adultery not having violated that covenant.
(4) Jesus was no doubt aware of this issue (as Paul was), and yet says “saving for the cause of fornication.” (Mt. 5:32)
Lesser causes of divorce are often argued upon the word translated as “fornication” in Mt. 5:32, “whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication.” It is true that the word (porneia, see Strongs) has a variety of broader meanings than adultery. Though much more could be said, yet:
(1) A word often does not mean all it can mean, but is limited to the context it is spoken in, and often means only one thing. Many of the other meanings of porneia (many of which are improper or metaphorical) are not specific to the marital relation as such.
(2) If porneia be taken as “sexual sin”, yet not all sexual sins overturn the foundation of marriage (Gen. 2:20-25) and two people cleaving to each other, or even strictly regard the fullest marital consumation between two persons.
(3) While difficult cases arise, yet not every use of porn is the same as adultery.
One last and most difficult kind of case will be taken up before a remaining objection will be answered and a final observation made. What about when a married couple is forced to be separated, likely for the remainder of their lives, such as in one slave master selling a slave woman married to another slave to a country across the globe, or another country invading and taking one’s wife into their slavery back home, possibly to be married to another man?
(1) Separating married slaves in many cases is a great moral crime (such as in Ex. 21:3). In these cases, and in a foreign army coming and abducting one’s spouse, the issue is morally equivelent (or nearly so) to one’s spouse being kidnapped. That is a great tragedy, which sometimes can be civilly rectified, but it is not unique to marriage as such.
(2) Such a case is not willful. One can cleave to a spouse (Gen. 2:24) who is so separated indefinitely, as the wife of a soldier (even before modern communications) who does not know if she will ever hear from him again. Granted it may be hard for some to remain faithful to such a separated spouse after several years, but marriage was given in Innocency in Eden, and binds perfectly, one’s whole life, irrespective if it is difficult for sinners to keep, even for circumstances caused by someone’s sin or by the common curse of God on this world. Though it may be hard to maintain one’s will for the other, one ought to so will. We retain our spiritual marriage to Christ yet while He is away (Jn. 14:28; 16:28).
(3) If a person does keep themself chaste for the other person, it is commonly counted as virtuous (in contrast to the person being counted as deluded). Yet it can only be virtuous if it is a good thing, and if it is good and one ought to do good, then one is ethically so bound. A falling short of that, is a falling short of the standard, and, however understandable it may be, yet is it not due to a hardness of heart (Mt. 19:8-9)? Long lost couples, keeping themselves pure, have been reunited after many decades to their great joy and satisfaction. Other long lost couples have met again to see each other having taken on new lives and marriages; yet it was not designed that way in Eden.
(4) Ex. 21:4 speaks of a case where the customs of slavery took precedence over the slave-marriage. In this case, while the man could go free while his wife and kids remained in slavery, the text does not say or suggest that the two were no longer married, or that the children were no longer his children. Many examples of this exact case occured in the American South under slavery, where the freed slave and the bond remained faithful to each other.
(5) In 1 Sam. 30:5-6, the Amalekites take captive two of David’s wives, but “David encouraged himself in the Lord his God.” Later, in 2 Sam. 3:14-15, David takes back one of those wives, though she had been married to another man. That second marriage, in the foreigner taking another man’s wife, was but forced adultery, and not valid.
The remaining objection is that, marriage and its dissolution, while grounded on natural laws, yet are positive laws, and natural laws override positive laws when they conflict. Therefore, should not at least some pressing natural needs (such as in the cases above) override the positive regulations about dissolving marriages?
(1) Jesus did reveal the divinely and positively chosen natural factor, with and on account of associated natural needs, that dissolves marriage: adultery; and Paul by the Spirit another: willful desertion.¹ Therefore all other causes are excluded, as God did not choose them, and what can positively dissolve a positive institution of God, by definition, is not revealed by the light of nature.
¹ Willful desertion is seen to be positively chosen so far as it is possible that willful desertion could possibly not dissolve marriage, the couple in that case being still bound to each other though separated by willful desertion; therefore willful desertion does not necessarily dissolve a marriage by nature, but only by God’s positive prescription. The same is true of adultery.
(2) One does not need marriage to live (Mt. 19:12), even in the most adverse circumstances; therefore the most basic natural needs do not override the Biblical prescriptions for divorce:
– Naomi and Ruth are examples. Their husbands die and they move countries, as widows, and are able to find sustenance, both by one of them gleaning. What case is there where one’s survival depends on divorcing and remarrying, when if one remained in their initial married state, albeit separated and unable to provide for themselves, it would not be obligatory for other persons around them to seek to support them (and their kids) by charity? Marriage is not essential to survival. Marriage to Boaz was a great comfort to Ruth, and Naomi, but it was not so necessary as that it needed to be done contrary to God’s positive prescriptions.
– The other reason most often given for the need to divorce and remarry in some of the difficult situations above and is to relieve sensual burning (1 Cor. 7:9). Yet sensual burning, contrary to one’s estate, is a product of original sin and is sin itself; it does not derive from pure nature, but sinful nature. Yet the institution of marriage was given before all sin. While a positive ordinance of God may be of great help in subduing sin (1 Cor. 7:9), yet no sin is a legitimate ground for breaking a positive law of God.
The final observation is that, while the law of marriage stands as entire, pure and firm as it ever did in Innocency, yet Scripture does precedent God graciously, civilly permitting much falling short of this standard by his sinful creatures, for their good, and in light of the complexities of this fallen world. That is, much of Church history, especially by civil governors, has permitted other causes of divorce besides adultery and willful desertion, and it may be hoped God does graciously forgive and in his mercy overlook much of it. The 7th Commandment ought not to be turned into the 1st Commandment:
In Ex. 21:4 the concerns of slavery (slavery being ultimately due to sin) and property (8th Commandment) override marriage (or at least are permitted to), that closest union of two people as one flesh. Marriage is not ultimate, trumping everything, and God allowed for, and even civilly enforced a pinching form of separation within marriage.
Likewise God permitted and civilly upheld polygamy in the Mosaic Law (Dt. 21:15-17). Granted this was for the hardness of the people’s hearts, as was their being allowed to divorce “for some uncleanness” (or exercise “no fault divorce”, Dt. 24:1; Mt. 19:8), yet God civilly allowed this for their good in the circumstances.
All this to say, while the standard of marriage remains as straight and holy as God’s pure will, which we ought to pursue by his grace, God may be merciful (even by a common mercy for his creatures) with the large share of Church history, and those today that have allowed for and walked in other causes of divorce, especially due to human weaknesses. May we acknowledge our sins and failings, and through the Savior, Jesus the Christ, pursue the Lord with all our heart and love.
.
May a Threat on One’s Life be Grounds for Divorce?
Notes
Regarding the topic of a threat on one’s life in marriage, note that Rutherford’s language below, it appears, only necessarily implies separation between the spouses (whether for a time or permanently), and not necessarily a dissolving of the marriage bond. Baxter’s arguments, and the language of “depart” that he is responding to (in the context of Baxter’s larger chapter), on the other hand, does seems to grant divorce on such circumstances. William Bucanus above took a relatively more broad view in many of these difficult exigencies, and Bucer taught a very broad view.
.
Order of Quotes
Luther
Ward
Rutherford
Baxter
Poole
.
1500’s
Martin Luther
‘On Marriage Matters’ (1530) in Luther’s Works, vol. 46, The Christian in Society III ed. Robert Schultz & Helmut Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 5th Article, pt. 2, p. 315
“There are many more cases, such as where on fears poison or murder… But in such cases the authorities and sensible people can be of help… a spouse must run the risk of poison or murder, especially where it is undertaken secretly. Open undertakings can be prevented and deterred by the authorities or friends.”
.
1600’s
Richard Ward
Theological Questions, Dogmatical Observations & Evangelical Essays, upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to St. Matthew… (London, 1640), ch. 5, p. 230
“Secondly some things dissolve mariage… Disrumpendo, by breaking of it, viz…. Secondly, fornication, as in this verse and Mt. 19:9, where for adultery and fornication it is lawful for a man to put away his wife… [Rudolph] Gualter here includes all greater things, as poison, offering to stab, and the like: but this is doubtful, and the Scripture herein silent, and therefore Peter Martyr (pt. 2, ch. 10, §54-55) holds the contrary.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
Lex Rex… (1644; Edin., 1843)
“There is no necessity that the reserve [of withholding of certain powers] be expressed in the covenant between king and people [as the Erastian, divine-right of kings advocates maintained], more than in contract of marriage between a husband and a wife, [that] beside her jointure, you should set down this clause in the contract, that if the husband attempt to kill the wife, or the wife the husband, in that case it shall be lawful to either of them to part companies.”
.
p. 179
“The wife is obliged to bed and board with her husband, but not if she fear he will kill her in the bed.”
.
Richard Baxter
A Christian Directory… (London, 1673), pt. 2, ‘Christian Economics’, ch. 9, ‘Cases About Divorce & Separation’, p. 538
“Question 16: What if a man or wife know that the other in hatred does really intend by poison or other murder, to take away their life? May they not depart?
Answer: They may not do it upon a groundless or rash surmise, nor upon a danger which by other lawful means may be avoided (as by vigilancy, or the magistrate, or especially by love and duty). But in plain danger, which is not otherwise like[ly] to be avoided, I doubt not, but it may be done and ought.
For it is a duty to preserve our own lives as well as our neighbours: And when marriage is contracted for mutual help, it is naturally implied that they shall have no power to deprive one another of life (however some barbarous nations have given men power of the lives of their wives). And killing is the grossest kind of desertion, and a greater injury and violation of the marriage-covenant than adultery, and may be prevented by avoiding the murderer’s presence, if that way be necessary. None of the ends of marriage can be attained where the hatred is so great.”
.
Matthew Poole
Annotations on Matthew, ch. 5, vv. 31-32
“There may indeed be a parting between man and wife upon other accounts [than adultery], either wholly or in part: in case one of them will part from the other, which the apostle determines, 1 Cor. 7:11,15, in which case the person departing is only guilty if he or she marry again.”
.
Is Domestic Abuse Grounds for Divorce?
It is grounds for separation for a time till it may be remedied, but it is not of itself grounds for divorce. Note, though, that a spouse’s irremediable refusal, after being separated, to reunite with the other spouse, becomes willful desertion, which is a grounds for divorce.
.
Order of Quotes
French Reformed
Baxter
Poole
.
French Reformed Churches
Vertveil, 1567, Ch. 10, Orders & Decrees concerning Marriages, 10th Decree in ed. John Quick, Synodicon in Gallia Reformata… (London, 1692), p. 85
“Article 2. If a man shall evil entreat his wife, abusing, beating and tormenting her, or if he threaten outrageous mischief to her, and it be known that he is a very disorderly and choleric fellow, he shall be turned over to the [civil] Council, who are humbly entreated by their authority expressly to require him not to beat his wife and that under some certain penalty.”
.
Richard Baxter
A Christian Directory… (London, 1673), pt. 2, ‘Christian Economics’, ch. 9, ‘Cases About Divorce & Separation’, p. 539
“Question 18: What if a woman have a husband that will not suffer her to read the Scriptures, nor go to God’s worship, public or private, or that so beats or abuses her, as that it cannot be expected that human nature should be in such a case kept fit for any holy action: or if a man have a wife that will scold at him when he is praying or instructing his family, and make it impossible to him to serve God with freedom, or peace and comfort?
Answer: The woman must (at necessary seasons, though not when she would) both read the Scriptures and worship God, and suffer patiently what is inflicted on her: Martyrdom may be as comfortably suffered from a husband as from a prince. But yet if neither her own love and duty, and patience, nor friends’ persuasion, nor the magistrate’s justice can free her from such inhumane cruelty, as quite disables her for her duty to God and man, I see not but she may depart from such a tyrant.
But the man has more means to restrain his wife from beating him, or doing such intollerable things: either by the magistrate, or by denying her what else she might have, or by his own violent restraining her, as belongs to a conjugal ruler, and as circumstances shall direct a prudent man. But yet in case that unsuitableness or sin be so great, that after long trial, there is no likelihood of any other cohabitation but what will tend to their spiritual hurt and calamity, it is their lesser sin to live asunder by mutual consent.”
.
Matthew Poole
Annotations on Matthew, ch. 5, vv. 31-32
“There may indeed be a parting between man and wife upon other accounts [than adultery], either wholly or in part: in case one of them will part from the other, which the apostle determines, 1 Cor. 7:11,15, in which case the person departing is only guilty if he or she marry again.”
.
Article
1900’s
Bahnsen, Greg – ‘Theses on Divorce & Spousal Abuse’ (1984) at CMFnow.com written for Special Committee of Presbytery
Bansen towards the end argues from the lesser to the greater for abuse being a grounds of divorce from concubines being able to go free if he does not provide her food, clothes and sexual relations, per Ex. 21:10-11. See also Ex. 21:26-27. This position appears to go against WCF 24.6.
.
Is a Communicable Disease Grounds for Divorce?
Order of Quotes
Calvin
Baxter
Poole
.
1500’s
John Calvin
Commentary on Mt. 19, v. 9
“Those who search for other reasons [besides adultery for divorce] ought justly to be set at nought, because they choose to be wise above the heavenly Teacher. They† say that leprosy is a proper ground for divorce, because the contagion of the disease affects not only the husband, but likewise the children.
For my own part, while I advise a religious man not to touch a woman afflicted with leprosy, I do not pronounce him to be at liberty to divorce her. If it be objected, that they who cannot live unmarried need a remedy, that they may not be burned, I answer, that what is sought in opposition to the Word of God is not a remedy. I add too, that if they give themselves up to be guided by the Lord, they will never want [lack] continence, for they follow what He has prescribed. One man shall contract such a dislike of his wife, that he cannot endure to keep company with her: will polygamy cure this evil? Another man’s wife shall fall into palsy or apoplexy, or be afflicted with some other incurable disease, shall the husband reject her under the pretense of incontinency? We know, on the contrary, that none of those who walk in their ways are ever left destitute of the assistance of the Spirit.”
† [Such as William Bucanus.]
.
1600’s
Richard Baxter
A Christian Directory… (London, 1673), pt. 2, ‘Christian Economics’, ch. 9, ‘Cases About Divorce & Separation’, p. 539
“Question 19: May one [de]part from a husband or wife that has the leprosy or that has the French pox [syphilis] by their adulterous practices, when the innocent persons life is endangered by it.
Answer: If it be an innocent person’s disease, the other must cohabit, and tenderly cherish and comfort the diseased; yea, so as somewhat to hazard their own lives, but not so as apparently to cast them away, upon a danger not like[ly] to be avoided, unless the other’s life, or some greater good be like[ly] to be purchased by it.
But if it be the pox of an adulterer, the innocent party is at liberty [to divorce] by the other’s adultery, and the saving of their own lives does add thereto. But without adultery the disease alone will not excuse them from cohabitation, though it may from congress [coming together in sexual union].”
.
Matthew Poole
Annotations on Matthew, ch. 5, vv. 31-32
“There may indeed be a parting between man and wife upon other accounts [than adultery], either wholly or in part: in case one of them will part from the other, which the apostle determines, 1 Cor. 7:11,15, in which case the person departing is only guilty if he or she marry again.”
.
Whether Difference of Religion may be a Ground of Divorce, & on Ezra sending away the Israelites Heathen Wives
Quote
1600’s
William Perkins
‘A Warning Against the Idolatry of the Last Times, & an Instruction touching Religious or Divine Worship’ in The Works (London: Legatt, 1626), vol. 1, p. 692
“Thirdly, we may use any such fellowship with them as is, or shall be occasioned by virtue of our particular calling. Thus Christ, being the Savior of the world, conversed with publicans and sinners. Thus Paul being the Apostle of the Gentiles, enters into Athens, and there beholds their devotions. It is God’s commandement that the believing wife, shall nor forsake her unbelieving husband, if he be willing or desirous to dwell with her. (1 Cor. 7:13)
If it be alleged that Ezra constrained the Israelites to put away their Ammonitish and Moabitish, and the rest of their heathen, wives (Ezra 10:3): I answer that their marriages were indeed void and no marriages:
First, because the nations with whom they married were people, according to God’s Law, civilly dead: in that God had commanded their destruction, unless when peace was offered, they accepted of it. (Dt. 20:10)
Secondly, in that they were not only idolators, but also enticers to idolatry; God by express commandment did simply forbid the Jews to marry with them unless they did repent and changed their religion. And in regard of this commandment, the foresaid marriages were nullities, as incestuous marriages are no marriages by reason of the absolute prohibition of God.
Touching the society forbidden us with idolators, it is the society of amity, that is, of familiarity and special love. Two examples, whereof we find in the Word of God. One is of contracts of marriage with idolators, which the Scripture precisely condemns as an abomination in lsrael and a profanation of the name of God, when Judah marries the daughter of a strange god, Mal. 2:11.
Boaz indeed married Ruth, a Moabitess, but she was entered and received into the body of the Israelites by a former marriage: and she was one that believed in the God of Israel. ‘Thy people’ (says he to Naomi and Ruth) ‘shall be my people, and thy God, my God.’ Sampson likewise married a woman of the Philistines (Judg. 14:4), but that was by divine instinct and consequently by a special appointment of God.
Again it is alleged that God by express law gave leave to the Israelites to marry heathenish women taken captives in war. (Dt. 21:10-11) Answer: That is a law only of toleration, without approbation, in which God, for the hardness of their hearts, permits the evil, which cannot by policy be quite taken away. And this appears by two things:
First, before the marriage, the woman by God’s appointment must be deformed, by cutting off her hair, by the growing of her nails, by putting off the garments of her captivity, and by mourning for her father and mother for the space of a month: and the end of this was to cause a dislike in the Israelites of their intended marriages, or to signify a change of religion, at the least in pretense, in the parties espoused.
…
Here one exception must not be omitted. Put the case that the husband is an idolator and is content to dwell with his believing wife: she then is to live with him, not only in the society of peace, but also in the society of amity by doing all duties of Iove that concern a wife, so far as may stand with good conscience. For the precept of Paul’s, that marriage and marriage duties are to be preserved of the believing party with an infidel (1 Cor. 7:13-14), so be it the said infidel be content. It may be al!eged that thus the believer exposes himself to danger of idolatry. I answer:
Not because God defends them that call upon Him who thrust not themselves into danger, but bear the danger and calamity into which they are fallen, attending upon their callings.
Again, if the unbelieving party shall solicit the other and use all means, both fair and foul, to draw him or her to idolatry, the believing party in this case, may go aside for a time and omit the duty of marriage. For this is all one as if the idolatrous and unbelieving party should depart. For indeed, that party is said to depart in whom the cause of departing is, as in the Church he is a schismatic in whom the cause of the schism is, and not always he that separates.
Secondly, it may be objected that a Christian may not become the member of a harlot, much less of an idolator; considering idolatry is a great sin. I answer:
The reason is not like. For the fornicator consents to the fornication: and so does not the believing party, by doing duties that pertain to marriage, consent to the idolatry of the unbelieving party. And the fornicator willingly joins himself with an harlot; whereas the believing party desires he might be yoked with a believer and not with an infidel.
Lastly, it may be objected: if for adultery, divorce may be made, why not for idolatry which is spiritual adultery? I answer:
That not any sin by itself, as it is a sin, not breaking the troth and bond of marriage, is the proper cause of a divorce; and not any kind of idolatry, but the sin of adultery breakest his troth.”
.
Whether the Guilty Party in a Divorce may Remarry?
Order of
Intro
Articles 2
Quotes 4
Latin 2
.
Intro
The Reformed, it appears, were chiefly concerned to affirm and gave protection that the innocent party may remarry. As to whether the guilty party may remarry, there was some nuance and variety of opinion and practice.
.
Articles
1500’s
French Reformed Churches – Ch. 9, p. 65, Section 22 of the 2nd National Synod at Paris 1565
.
1700’s
Steuart of Pardovan, Walter – Title 5, ‘Of the Solemnization of Marriage’, sections 12 in Collections & Observations Concerning the Worship, Discipline & Government of the Church of Scotland… (1709), p. 112
Per a Scottish statute of parliament in 1600, the guilty party could remarry under certain conditions.
.
Quotes
Order of
Polanus
Leiden Synopsis
Church of Scotland
Poole
.
1600’s
Amandus Polanus
The Substance of Christian Religion Soundly Set Forth in Two Books, by Definitions & Partitions... (London, 1595), ‘…now we must speake of the time after which another wedlock may be graunted to the innocent person’, pp. 264-5
“There is a twofold consideration of the time, after which another wedlock is granted to the innocent person…”
.
The Leiden Synopsis
vol. 3 (Brill, 2020), Disputation 47, ‘On the Five False Sacraments of the Papists’, ‘Marriage’, ‘Corollaries’, pp. 370-1
“2. We affirm that in the case of adultery or the wrongful desertion of an unbeliever the marriage is dissolved, even as far as the bond is concerned, in such a way that once the divorce has lawfully taken place, the innocent party should not be prevented from marrying.”
.
A Committee of the Church of Scotland 1638
‘Animadversions upon the Book of Canons Obtruded upon the Church of Scotland’ (1638) in Gordon, History of Scots Affairs, vol. 2, bk. 3, ch. 55, p. 90
The Book of Canons (1636) was the Episcopal form for the ordination of ‘clergy’ that was sought to be imposed on Scotland with the Book of Common Prayer (1637).
“Third, It [the Book of Canons] forbids marriage to the innocent party divorced; contrary to Mt. 5:32, and Mt. 19:9, which the reformed churches maintain against the council of Trent, session xxiv, canon vii, who have such doctrine as our bishops.”
.
Matthew Poole
Annotations on Matthew, ch. 5, vv. 31-32, “…and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
“A second question is also here determined by our Saviour, viz. that it is unlawful for her, that is justly put away, to marry to any other, or for any other to marry her wittingly.”
.
Annotations on Matthew, ch. 19, v. 9
“Some have upon these words made a question whether it be lawful for the husband or the wife separated for adultery to marry again while each other lives. As to the party offending, it may be a question; but as to the innocent person offended, it is no question, for the adultery of the person offending has dissolved the knot of marriage by the Divine law. It is true that the knot cannot be dissolved without the freedom of both persons each from another, but yet it seemeth against reason that both persons should have the like liberty to a second marriage. For:
1. The adulteress is by God’s law a dead woman, and so in no capacity to a second marriage.
2. It is unreasonable that she should make an advantage of her own sin and error.
3. This might be the occasion of adultery, to give a wicked person a legal liberty to satisfy an extravagant lust.
But for the innocent person, it is as unreasonable that he or she should be punished for the sin of another.”
.
Latin Articles
1500’s
Bucer, Martin – On the Reign of Christ in Melanchthon & Bucer, tr. Satre & Pauck in The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 19 (1550; 1557; London: SCM Press LTD, 1969), bk. 2 and Bucer, The Judgment of Martin Bucer concerning Divorce, written to Edward VI, in his Second Book of the Kingdom of Christ, and now Englished… tr. John Milton (London: Simmons, 1644)
44. ‘To those who are legally divorced a second marriage ought to be permitted’
Bucer allowed the guilty party to remarry. He also allowed for divorce for many reasons, including mutual consent. See the notes under his work above on this page.
.
1600’s
Forbes, John – 20. ‘Whether new marriages are to be conceded to the guilty party [in a divorce]’ in Ten Books of Moral Theology in which the Precepts of the Decalogue are Expounded, and various things around the Law of God and special controversial precepts of the same are dissolved, and cases of conscience are explained Detailed ToC in All the Works (d.1648; Amsterdam, 1703), vol. 1, 7. Seventh Precept, pp. 141-42
.
.
.
“It hath been said, ‘Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement’: 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.”
Mt. 5:31-32
.
.
.
Related Pages