BACK
recognise nothing before unless sin: say a heathen, he may as such have had and left twenty wives, I ignore it all when he is converted. Being abandoned, she did not stand as a married woman, when she married, unless a formal divorce was required. In England the courts hold a woman free after seven years, the husband not being heard of, but there is no law to say so. I know not how it is in Canada. I question it a little unless it be known to be so. But I do not think a deserted woman would be held to perpetual celibacy where the law recognised her as free. Many questions would arise as to her conduct. Did she tell her present husband before she was married ? What oath or equivalent assertion was made to get married ? I suppose there is some as in civil marriage, and publishing banns. Did she say there was no impediment when, if a formal divorce was required, there was ? A person in London was kept out on this ground; he had sworn or solemnly declared there was no obstacle as they went, and it was his wife's sister, not allowed in England. But if a formal divorce is not required by law, but the woman held free ipso facto after seven years, I should say she stood as a free woman, though I may regret her path, and inquire, as I have said, as to the circumstances. If taken on profession as a Christian, she was free according to 1 Corinthians; if looked at as merely of the world, she had no husband. It was all before conversion. And legally (if divorce not required) she was free when she married, only I should look to where her conscience was in doing it. The passage in Romans [VII.2,3] does not exactly apply. The word "married" is not in the Greek at all. The woman is supposed to be in full connection with and under the authority of the husband, and then "is to another man," that is faithless to the existing bond. Here the question is whether the existing bond was not dissolved, and an actual marriage a lawful one. I should fear if her conscience had been clear she would have spoken to brethren. But that is another question.

Letters of JNDarby - Volume II page 493-496

But in principle, to make human laws the measure of christian right and wrong is in my judgment a total subversion of Christ's and the word's authority. There may be extreme cases, but if the principle be true it is true everywhere... You cannot make a bona fide marriage before God vary with the law of the land...They cannot be re-married - it is confessing they were never married at all. Nor would anything now make it a bit more legal if they do not quite give up England absolutely. But, in any case, I resist as wickedness making the law of the land the rule of christian judgment.

Comments

Divorce is almost always a traumatic experience for all the parties involved, that is, the husband, wife and any co-respondent, as well as any children of the marriage, hence naturally speaking divorce is something to be avoided. There are also nearly always financial problems even if there are no actual disputes over money matters.From the Christian point of view marriage breakup cannot simply be governed by the law of the land where the parties live. Different countries have different laws and the laws themselves are altered as the climate of opinion changes from one generation to another. While as far as possible legal regulations should be complied with they cannot ultimately govern the conduct of a Christian. Because there is no law against a certain course of action that does not make it right. The law in the United Kingdom does not forbid sexual relations outside of marriage but that does not make them right. On the other hand if marriage was forbidden by law that would not make it wrong for a Christian to marry (We cannot allow ourselves to be governed by teachings of demons 1 Timothy 4:1-3). The right to marry is God-given (1 Corinthians 9:5) and necessary for the continuation of the race. Promiscuous behaviour leads to disease as is well known (Romans 1:26/27). All reasonable legal regulations relating to marriage should be complied with by a Christian, but not anything that is morally wrong. The principles to follow are:-

All legal regulations which are good should be followed, and also those that are morally neutral (Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1/2; 1 Peter 2:13-17).

Any regulation that would come between us and God should not be complied with (Daniel 6) and also any regulation which would require us to do evil (Daniel 3:8-18). We must do good (Mark 3:1-6).

Christian principles should be followed where these are narrower than received law (Matthew 5:21-48). We should, however, only go against rulers when God's will obliges us to do so (Acts 5:29).

The assembly should judge where necessary in sexual and other matters (1 Corinthians 5:12/13; 6:1-8)

From time to time difficult sexual problems may come before the assembly. What about the case of a woman who finds that the man (or husband) she is living with has committed more than one murder. This is not so rare as one might imagine. Should she leave him ? Would it be right for her to marry another ? Does the answer turn on the whether she was legally married or not ? Does the answer turn on whether the murderer suffers capital punishment or not ? I knew of such a case. When the girl found out about the murders she came to her senses and to the Lord. She has now married a Christian and she and her husband when I last heard of them were working on the mission field.

Generally a woman who has a married a churlish husband should remain with him (1 Samuel 25).

The assembly may sometimes have difficult cases to decide. Wisdom and love would be needed and the Lord's guidance sought. Scripture does not necessarily give us a cut and dried answer to every case.

NEXT