Question Corner

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Jul 20, 1904

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 30, No. 29.

1539.—Questions Concerning Divorce.

(1) Can a woman who has been divorced from her husband marry again? (2) Does she not commit adultery by so doing? (3) Does not the man who marries her commit adultery? (4) Does not Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18 expressly state that he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery? J. R.

(1) Is there any scriptural ground for divorce? If any, what is it? (2) A man and woman were married; he left her and married another; she got a divorce on the ground of adultery, and she also married again. According to Scripture, had she a right to marry again? H. U. J.

The above are two sample letters among many which come to us on the divorce question. Loose, marital notions, and we may add, practises, constitute a marked sign of the times. They are always consequent on a low regard of God's law.

In the beginning man and wife were united, never to be separated—united not only in their own life, but in that of their offspring. “The twain shall be one flesh,” the two elements in the union equal, but differing. When men and women departed from God, when His law was forgotten, loose conceptions of marriage prevailed; woman was made a plaything, and even in the nation having the highest plane of moral practise, a man could put away his wife for any cause. The teaching of Jesus placed marriage back on its original foundation. God had suffered the blindness of the past; in the increased light of Christ, men must come back to first principles. Mark 10: 2-9.

Yet, according to Matt. 5: 32, 33 and 19: 9, the Master allows one just cause for divorce, namely, fornication. And we know no reason why it is not as applicable on one side as on the other. See Mark 10: 11, 12. Both stand equal. But Luke 16: 18, and Mark 10: 11, 12, in the sweeping condemnation of adultery, have reference to the loose manner of divorce at the mere pleasure of the party, and must exclude the exception made in Matthew. Then, in the light of these considerations, the obvious answers to the first series of questions are as follows:—

1. If she herself is not guilty of fornication, if the husband has been guilty of fornication, and if she is freed from him in the eyes of the law, she may marry again. It seems to us she has the Scriptural right.

2. She does not. Her former husband lost his moral right to his wife by fornication, and the divorce grants the legal separation.

3. If she have the right to marry, the man who marries her, if he be otherwise free, has also the right to marry.

4. Exception is made, we understand, in the case of fornication. The innocent party, if divorced, is not guilty of adultery, tho he or she marries again.

As to the second series: (1) the scriptural ground, as above given, is fornication.

2. When the husband left the wife and married again, he committed adultery, thus freeing the woman from moral obligation to him. Her divorce granted legal separation. She had the right to marry.

There are cases where separation seems almost absolutely necessary on account of cruelty or persecution. But this gives no right to marry, as set forth in 1 Cor. 7: 10-15. But separation is always attended with great temptation and danger. Better to suffer and be true to God, and perhaps win a soul, than to throw two lives under the power of special temptation.