THE ATLANTIC MESSENGER.
Monthly]
Devoted to tfie Relief of Baptist Destitution in Eastern North Carolina..
[25 Cents Per Year.
VOLUME SIX.
MOREHEAD CITY, N. C., JULY, 1905.
NUMBER TWO.
Whatever He Would Have Me To Do.
I asked the Lord to let me do
Some mighty work for him ;
To fight asunder His battle hosts,
Then sing the victor’s hymn ;
I longed my ardent love to show,
But Jesus would not have it so.
He placed me in a quiet home,
Whose life was quiet and still.
And gave me little things to do.
My daily life to fill;
I could not think it good to be
Just put aside so silently.
Small duties gathered around my way.
They seemed of earth alone ;
I who had longed for conquests bright.
To lay before His throne.
Had common things to do and hear.
To watch and strive with daily care.
So then I thought my prayer unheard.
And asked the Lord once more
That he would give me work for Him.
And open wide the door—
Forgetting that my Master knew
Just what was best for me to do.
Then quietly the answer came ;
“My child, I hear thee cry ;
Think not that mighty deeds alone
Will bring thee victory ;
The battle has been planned by Me ;
Let daily life thy conquests see. ”
—Selected.
voluntarily (Matt. 5:31 ; Luke
16:18) and once he was asked
about it by the Pharisees who
wished to tempt him (Mark 10:2-
12; Matt. 19:3-12). Once the
question is involved, the case of
the woman taken in adultery
(John 7‘,53-8: i) though this pas
sage is probably not a part of the
Gospel of John. In the Old
Testament stoning was the pen
alty for a woman guilty of adul
tery, though a number of argu-
The New Testament Law of Divorce.
PROF. A. T. ROBERTSON, D.D.
(Delivered before the Preachers’
Conference.)
The word “divorce” occurs
but twice in in the New Te.sta-
ment (Matt. 5:32 ; Mark 10:4)
though the subject is discussed
»?-three times by Jesus and once at
length by Paul. Perhaps the
translators felt difficulty in using
the word “divorce” because of
the various idieas gathered up
into it. They use instead “put
away.” Perhaps no modern .so
ciological problem is so difficult
to handle as the question of di
vorce. The diversity of opinion
among Christians themselves is
well illustrated by the recent
Episcopal Congress in Boston,
when a compromise position was
reached after days of debate, viz,,
divorce only for adultery and re
marriage for the innocent party
alone after an interval of one
year. The Roman Catholics will
not grant divorce for adultery or
any cause except by special dis
pensation and Roman Catholic
theologians either deny that
Jesus taught this or .say that the
New Testament needs the light
of tradition to make it clear.
Uniform divorce laws in the
states of the Union are greatly
needed, but our people are much
divided on the matter all the way
from South Carolina where no
ments show that it was not con
sidered obligatory on the husband
to execute this law. The bill of
divorcement granted by Moses
proves it, to go no further, and in
the story above mentioned, Jesus
calls for entire innocence on the
part of the accusers before they
attempt to stone the woman.
DID JESUS ALLOW DIVORCE AT
ALL?
Moses did, though from the
beginning it was not so. The
ideal of God in this matter was
one man and one woman united
for life. The bill of divorcement
was a concession, Jesus said to
the tempting Pharisees, to the
hardness of heart of the people
her if he marry another, of the
women herself, and of the man
who marries her when she is di
vorced. In fact it is making the
wife commit adultery to divorce
her without just cause (Matt
.5:32.)
DID JESUS ALLOW RE-MARRIAGE
OF THE INNOCENT PARTY?
The Roman Catholics says that
return to divorce is merely breaking the
remain unmarried or
her husband ” But a little fur- bonds of the marriage ceremony,
ther down he mentions the un- The real divorce has already
believing husband or wife indif- taken place. This cannot be said
‘put away” is merely separation
though it was itself an improv^ can be granted in such a case,
ment on the tax customs of thC" But-it is tfie.lack of clear state
divorces at all are granted, to
South Dakota where divorces
can be obtained by six months’
residence. Louisville is half way
between. A national divorce
law is urgently needed. We ap
peal to the New Testament, but
our state laws are not patterned
after the New Testament teach
ing. The Christian, especially
the Christian minister, must in
such conflict, regulate his con
duct by the Word of God. The
New Testament is not exhaustive
on the matter of divorce and re
marriage, though the general
tenor of its teaching seems reason
ably clear. However, nearly
every point raised has been vigor
ously challenged on various
grounds by modern scholars.
Twice Jesus spoke of divorce
time. The Pharisees were divi
ded themselves on the subject,
the.school of,. Schammai inter
preting “unseemly thing” in
Deuteronomy to be unchastity or
indecency at any rate, while the
school of Hillel took it to be
'“anything unseemly,’’ bad cook
ing or bad looks. Jesus was ask
ed if Hillel was right in granting
divorce “for every cause.” The
master had no hesitation in ans
wering that Hillel was not right.
Schammai v;asnearer to the truth.
But Jesus made the restriction
more binding than did Scham
mai and confined divorce to one
cause, “fornication,” a general
term and so including adultery.
Jesus had allowed divorce for this
cause also when he spoke of the
matter in the Sermon on the
Mount (Matt. 5:32). It is true
that Mark and Luke do not men
tion this exception and make the
denial of divorce absolute, but it
can be replied that this excep
tion might have been considered
obvious. Moreover Matthew
does give it twice. It can be
confidently replied then that
Jesus does permit divorce on the
ground of unfaithfulness to the
marriage vow. In i Cor. 7:11
Paul in giving the command of
Jesus against divorce, speaks of
the contingency that the wife
may leave her husband.
Did Jesus permit re-marriage
for the guilty party ? In Matt.
5:32 the Master says that the
man who marries a divorced
woman, save one who has the
right to divorce, commits adul-
ery. Clearly then she also com
mits adultery, if she has no prop
er ground for divorce. Jesus re
peats this position in Luke 16:18
and later in Mark 10:11 and
Matt. 19 9. There seems no es-,
from “bed and board” and does
not involve the right to remar
riage. But apoluo is the recog
nized term in the Greek of
the time for divorce. Some
of the German writers (Keim
Bleek, etc.) say that this phase
“except for fornication” is not
genuine in Matthew. But there
is no evidence to support it.
though the manuscripts do vary
in Matt. 19:9. The denial of the
right of remarriage to all parties
where no divorce should be grant
ed and the denial of remarriage
to the guilty party, seem to in
volve the admission of remarriage
for rae innodeht party. This, of
cou^e^' would not be true in
(^ofee where- both parties were
innocent, for ho proper divorce
menl; here by the Master that
gives occasion or dispute, though
the pb's^f.q. c.f'Christ seems,plain
enough taken as a whole.
DID JESUS ALLOW THE WOMAN TO
DIVORCE HER HUSBAND ?
In every sentence but one
where Christ mentions the sub
ject, he speaks of the husband’s
putting away of the wife. This
exception is in Mark 10:12 :
“And if she herself shall put
away her husband and marry
another, she committeth adul
tery.” It has been objected that
Jewish law and custom did not
contemplate the woman’s exercis
ing a prerogative which was the
exclusive privilege of the hus
band. As a matter of fact it was
very unusual as the Old Testa
ment will show. Josephus,
speaking of Salome’s divorcing
her husband Costobarus, con
demns it (Antiquities, Book XV.,
ch, 7, Sec. 10). He does the
same concerning “Herodius who
took upon her to confound the
laws of our country, and divorce
herself from her husband while
he was alive, and was married to
Herod” Antipas (Ant. Book
XVIII., ch. 5, Sec. 4). But
these exceptions show that it was
possible. At any rate Jesus
speaks of it as a possible case
and condemns it. He grants no
exception as in the case of hus
band divorcing his wife “for the
sake of fornication.” We are
left to argue the equities of the
situation. Mark, who alone
gives this saying of Jesus, does
not mention the exception in the
case of the husband as Matthew
does, but forbids absolutely di
vorce for either husband or wife.
We may argue then that Jesus
did not treat the wife differently
om the husband. Moreover, in
cape from this teaching as meant'JYCor. 7:11 Paul presents the al
by our Lord, that one who has ?i.\ native of the wife’s leaving
no ground for divorce has no
ground for re-marriage. This is
true of the husband who divorces
'.hfc\ husband when he
.ng\-)f the command
And \ /et here Paul says
is speak-
of Jesus,
“let her
ferently in tbe case where one is
a Christian and the other is a
heathen (i Cor. 7:12-16). It is
noticeable that at the present day
far more women obtain divorces
from their hnsbauds than the
othes way. It must be said also
that they have far more cause to
do so. The question of the re
marriage of the wife is wrapt up
in the point of her right to a di
vorce. If she is allowed a divorce
against her husband for fornica
tion, then she would be allowed
to remarry,
DID PAUL EXTEND THE TEACHING
OF JESUS AND GRANT DIVOR
CES ON OTHER GROUNDS?
In Eph. 5:22-38 Paul gives
the noblest picture of the sancti
ty and dignity of the marriage
relatian, for he compares it to the
mystic union between Christ and
the glorious church of the re
deemed for whom Christ died.
This is no temporary bond to be
snapped at will. Jesus is today
the head of his church and it is
being purified by him and made
without spot or wrinkle. More
over in Rom. 7:1-6 Paul argues
that the Christian is set free from
the bondage gf the law as the
woman can have a new husband
only on the death of the former
lusband. But in i Cor. 7:12-16
k’aul speaks of the problem in
family life presented where the
lusband is a Christian and the
wife a heathen and vice versa.
!fie has two things to say abo’ut
this new problem that had not
arisen when Jesus spoke on this
ubject. His first word is that
the Christian must not force a
separation. If the heathen hus
band or wife is willing to con
tinue the union, the Christian
must be willing to do so. The
marriage is legitimate and the
children are legitimate. But the
other word is this: Suppose the
leathen husband or wife is not
willing to keep up the marriage
relation and insists on separation,
hen what ? Well, let the unbe-
ieving husband or wife go, says
r’aul. He uses the word “de
part” here (chridesoho) not the
technical word “put away”
(apoluo).
It would seem that this is a
case of voluntary separation, not
a legal divorce. If this be true,
there could, of course, be no re-
of anything else It should be
said that Paul has offered in Cor.
7:12-16 the right solution for
orher modern inequalities in the
marriage relation. Endure them
if possible. If they are unendur
able, then separate either volun
tarily or legally, but with entire
divorce giving right to remarry.
If this solution of the grave
problem married life such as
drunkenness, etc , were adopted,
the teaching of Jesus would be
observed, the divorce laws would
be easily simplified and unified,
marriage itself would be put on a
more stable basis, society would
be greatly purified, and the salva
tion of the home would be insur
ed. If divorce were thus difficult
and meant only one, thing, mar
ried people would get over petty
troubles and live together instead
of airing them before the public
in the divorce courts.
Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary.—Baptist Argus.
Sunday’s Paraphrase and Discussion
of Rom. 6:3-4.
The Rev. Prof. William Sandy
is an Episcopalian minister, and
a prqfessor in Oxford University,
England. His rendering and
paraphrase of Rom. 6:3-4 consti
tute a very interesting passage.
This paraphrase is to be found in
his excellent volume on Romans
in the International Critical Com
mentary Series—a commentary
which is recognized by all the
world as constituting the greatest
achievement of modern scholar
ship in that particular line of
work. The volume on Romans
is the very best of the series that
I have examined. The para
phrase in question is as follows:
3 “Surely you do not need re
minding that all of us who were
immersed or baptized, as our
Christian phrase runs, ‘into
Christ’, i. e. into the closest alle-
marriage in such cases, for the
marriage had never been legally
annulled. This alternative is
not even raised by Paul in this
connection. It may be properly
said then that Paul did not advo
cate divorce for anything save
fornication, though he does not
even indicate this exception save
by implication.
MAY WE RIGHTLY GET DIVOECE
ON OTHER GROUNDS THAN
FORNICATION?
If SO, they must be grounds in
harmony with the teaching of
Jesus. Now in the nature of the
case there can be no other reason
that so snaps asunder the bond of
marriage as adultery. This sin
breaks the marriage tie and the
giance and adhesion to Him,were
so immersed or baptized into a
special relation to his death.
I mean that the Christian, at his
baptism, not only professes obe
dience to Christ but enters into
a relation to Him so intimate
that it may be described as actual
union. Now this union, taken
in connection with the peculiar
symbolism of Baptism, implies a
great deal more. That symbol
ism recalls to us with great vivid
ness the redeeming acts of Christ
—His Death, Burial, and Resur
rection. And our union with
Christ involves that we shall re
peat those acts, in such sense as
we may, i. e. in a moral and
spiritual sense, in our own per
sons.
4 “When we descended into
the baptismal water, that meant
that we died with Christ—
to sin. When the water Hosed
over our heads, that meant that
we lay buried with Him, in
proof that our death to sin, like
His Death, was real. But this
carries with it the third step in
the process. As Christ was rais-
(Concluded on fourth page.)
. .-X
"k X-