Divorce and Marriage by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Mar 15, 1883

Divorce and Marriage.

By Editor

We receive so many letters similar to the following that we are induced to publish this:—

"It sometimes occurs that persons accept present truth, who have been separated from one married companion, and have married again, or perhaps are married to one who has been divorced, or perhaps they have been parted for years, and had no divorce when they married again. I do not know as that is any worse. These things are deplorable, but, since they exist, I wish to know what the duty of a person under such circumstances. I do not ask from curiosity, for the subject is one of too serious a character for that; I ask in behalf of one who would not knowingly do wrong."

1. They who have been divorced for any cause allowable in the State in which they live, and marry again, are legally married; and if such second marriage took place before they came to the knowledge of the present truth, we are to suppose that they acted according to the best light they had, and receive them without further question. To decide otherwise would often result in rejecting those who had acted both legally and conscientiously, or cause them to break up legal relations, to the injury of individuals and society. We have never advised, nor shall we ever advise, any to take such a course. Where the action is legal, we cannot go back of the time of their receiving the light of present truth.

2. To marry again without a divorce, no matter how long the separation, if both parties are living, is decidedly worse. Such an action is illegal in any country, and utterly inexcusable; it should not be tolerated for a moment. Under such circumstances, no person could plead that he had acted according to the best light he had, or acted conscientiously, unless he was too ignorant to be responsible for anything, and then he would be below the plane of church membership.

3. After people come to the knowledge of the truth, they may justly be held to conform to the precepts of Christianity in all matters. Our State laws are similar to those rules which were allowed because of the hardness of the hearts of the people, but which the Saviour disallowed. He said: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." This language is too plain to admit of any difference of opinion, and we could not conscientiously do less than to expect all Christians to regard this as the rule of their action. If fornication or adultery is the ground of the divorce, we believe, on the Saviour's authority, that the innocent party is left as free as if separated by death, and of course may marry again. But this privilege should be denied to the guilty party; otherwise a premium is placed upon crime, as a means of throwing off moral and legal obligations and forming new alliances.

Another question has been asked: If one party knows, or has sufficient reason to believe, that the other has committed adultery, and obtains a divorce on some other ground, not wishing to name that cause in the application, has the party who obtained such divorce a right to marry? We must confine our answer to that question to our own action. We could not conscientiously solemnize marriage under such circumstances because the crime is not in proof. The parties stand before the world on the evidence given in court, and if adultery is not given as the ground for obtaining the divorce, we dare not act on any supposition that such ground exists. This is the course we have marked out for ourselves, and to go beyond this would be to open the door for any number of evasions of the Saviour's rule of conduct.

We feel a strong assurance that our position is correct on every point here noticed. We have answered questions on this subject before, but perhaps not so definitely in some respects as in this case. We must also express our deep regret that we have not a well-considered United States law on the subject of divorce. State laws are no better than a farce, for if one State provides some just limitation, it is neutralized by the law of a neighboring State, and taken together, they are as loose as the veriest libertine could ask. Christians should not be satisfied to stand legally justified by such laws; they must see to it that they are morally justified on Scripture grounds.