Concerning divorce, we have this teaching:--

      The Lord commanded some things and Paul commanded some things in reference to such cases, which it would appear at first difficult to reconcile.

      The Lord says, (Matt. xix. 9,) "Whoever divorces his wife, except for whoredom, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries the woman divorced, commits adultery." So Jesus, while a minister of the circumcision, decided a question referred to him by the Pharisees. To the same effect he speaks in the Sermon on the Mount, (Matt. v. 32,) "Whoever shall dismiss his wife, except for whoredom, is the occasion of her becoming an adulteress; and whoever marries her that is divorced, commits adultery." Luke (xvi. 18) records the decision of the question referred by the Pharisees, in almost [552] the same words found in Matt. xix. 9. These decisions would of course be final, though spoken with a reference to the Jewish institution, and while that institution was yet standing, had there not been any other law or regulation upon that subject since.

      But since the kingdom of God was taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles, and with a reference to the state of things in the Gentile world, at and since the introduction of Christianity, a society of Christians in the city of Corinth wrote to the Apostle to the Gentiles concerning the marriage covenant, and certain things connected with it, which it seems they could not satisfactorily adjust as the matters stood between them. This drew from the Apostle a decision of the matter which seems at first view, to clash with the quotations made from Matthew and Luke.

      Paul, after quoting a command from the Lord, and addressing it to the Christians, viz.: "Let not a wife (that is, of course, a Christian) depart from her husband"--immediately supposes that notwithstanding this injunction a case might occur in which a sister might depart from her husband without forfeiting her standing in the church, and in reference to a brother, who is a husband, he says, "he must not put away his wife."

      But he adds, "The rest I command, not the Lord; if any brother has an infidel wife, who is well pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." This is contrary to the commandment of the Lord given to the Jews under the antecedent dispensation; for they were commanded to put away their infidel wives, although they might be pleased to live with them. This commandment the Apostle also gives to every believing wife. This is Paul's commandment, and it is as obligatory as the Lord's; for in the conclusion of the whole matter he says, "he has, in his own judgment, the Spirit of the Lord, although the Lord had not given any commandment on these matters." But that which is most to the point, and the cases before us, is verse 15. "But if the infidel party depart, let them depart; a brother or a sister, in such a case, is not in bondage." The marriage covenant is broken, and the believing party is free.

      This permission being granted by the Apostle, and in accordance with the Spirit of God in reference to such cases, it seems to me that in all cases of voluntary desertion on the side of the unbelieving party, the marriage covenant is made void, and the believing party is to the deserter as though they had never been married.

      But in the second case which you have laid before me, there is another consideration which bears directly upon it. The female was not a disciple when deserted by her husband, and having been divorced according to the law of the land before she became a disciple, if in that matter she had actually erred, she is not now to be repudiated [553] for that error any more than one who formerly was a slanderer or a persecutor, and has been brought to repentance and reformation, is now to be rejected for crimes committed before his conversion. And if the divorce was obtained after she became a disciple, in order to conform to the statutes of the state, with express reference to her marriage, it seems not materially to alter the case: for if it clearly appears that she was in fact literally deserted by her former husband, she still comes under the operation of the decision of the Apostle--a sister in such a case is free, or not under bondage.

      I would only add, that as it was in the kingdom of God among the Jews, so it is in the kingdom of God among the Christians. When both the parties are in the kingdom, then the husband who puts away his wife, or the wife who leaves her husband, except for whoredom, and who marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries either of the parties, commits adultery, and is to be discarded from the Christian community. But in the cases before us, and in the decision of Paul upon such cases--one or both of the parties were not citizens of the kingdom of God when the desertion or separation occurred. All of which is respectfully submitted by one who has the honor to be your fellow citizen in the kingdom of God.

EDITOR.      

Source:

Alexander Campbell. Extract from "Reply" (to G. T.'s "Divorces"). The Millennial Harbinger 5 (February 1834): 71-73.

[MHA2 552-554]