Post by Brother Ben on Feb 4, 2005 20:21:01 GMT -5
The earliest reference to our subject in their writings is the tract 'On Divorce', presumably written by Michael Sattler,
and included in a collection of his writings as early as 1533.
"He who divorces without fornication, the only reason, and remarries, commits adultery; and he who takes a
divorced woman causes her to commit adultery; for Christ says, "These two are one flesh". But he who cleaves to a
harlot, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 6, sins against his own body and is one flesh with the harlot. Thus he is by this act
separated from his own flesh, in that he has attached himself to the alien flesh of the prostitute, and thus the marriage
is broken; for they are no longer one flesh, since the fornicator has become one flesh with the harlot. The one who
finds herself thereby divorced may now marry, whom she will, only let it be in the Lord..."
This tract makes it abundantly clear what the position was in these earliest days of the Anabaptist movement. It was
included with Sattler's other writings in 1533 and widely distributed as the Swiss Brethren's stance on the subject. It requires little commentary, for it is plain he understood marriage to be indissoluble except for
fornication, which breaks the one-flesh bond, thus freeing the innocent party to marry again, but only in the Lord.
In the book 'The Complete Writings of Menno Simons', there are several references to Menno's position on divorce
and remarriage, each of them testifying clearly his essential agreement with Sattler's stance, which this present writer
also accepts as biblical. Following are a few quotes:
"These two, one husband and one wife, are one flesh and can not be separated from each other to marry again
otherwise than for adultery, as the Lord says. Matt. 5:19; Mark 10; Luke 16.
"This is our real position, doctrine, and practice concerning marriage, as we here confess with the holy
Scriptures. By the grace of God it will ever remain the position of all pious souls, let them lie and slander as they
like. We know and confess truly that it is the express ordinance, command, intent, and unchangeable plain word of
Christ."33
"We know too that the bond of undefiled, honorable matrimony is so firm and fast in the kingdom and government
of Christ, that no man may leave his wife, nor a wife her husband, and marry another (understand rightly what Christ
says), except it be for adultery."34
"We acknowledge, teach, and assent to no other marriage than that which Christ and His apostles publicly and
plainly taught in the New Testament, namely, of one man and one woman (Matt. 19:4), and that they may not be
divorced except in case of adultery (Matt. 5:32); for the two are one flesh, but if the unbelieving one depart, a sister
or brother is not under bondage in that case. 1 Cor. 7:15"35
The first two excerpts here quoted leave no doubt as to Menno's understanding of the exception clauses of
Matthew. He approved of the possibility of remarriage for the innocent party after divorce due to adultery. The last
quote from page 200 expresses the same thing when understood in the light shed from the previous two references,
for to him, in this case, it is obvious he understands the departure of the unbeliever is referring to their sexual
unfaithfulness. For a believer in such a situation, they are no longer in bondage to that marriage vow.
In 1554, seven key Dutch Anabaptist leaders, including Menno Simons, Dirk Phillips, and Leonard Bouwens met
together in conference to discuss some pressing issues, and the result was the 'Wismar Articles'.
"Article IV. In the fourth place, if a believer and an unbeliever are in the marriage bond together and the unbeliever
commits adultery, the marriage tie is broken. And if it be one who complains that he has fallen in sin, and desires to
mend his ways, then the brethren permit the believing mate to go to the unfaithful one to admonish him, if
conscience allows it in view of the state of the affair. But if he be a bold and headstrong adulterer, then the innocent
party is free - with the provision, however, that she shall consult with the congregation and remarry according to
circumstances and decisions in the matter, be it well understood."
Dirk Phillips , a fellow bishop with Menno Simons and bulwark of the Anabaptist faith, wrote various tracts, and in
his one on 'The Evangelical Ban and Shunning', as quoted in the 'Dietrich Philip Handbook', he states:
"The Lord desired and commanded that men should do this no more (freely divorce their wives for any cause),
except in case of fornication, which is the only and true reason or cause for which a man may leave or put away his
wife and take another."37
We see here the early Anabaptist position stated by one of their pillars, one who was in full fellowship with others of
the core movement. The biblical simplicity of their understanding was typical of their commitment to take Scripture
in its literal meaning, without regard to man and his preconceptions and theological speculations.
I will turn to one more authoritative source for the Anabaptist movement to express this same position, that being the
monumental work, 'Martyrs Mirror', by Thieleman J. van Braght, written in 1660. In article 25 of a 'Confession of
Faith, according to the Holy Word of God', written about the year 1600, he quotes, that by His words Christ was;
"...re-establishing marriage between one man and one woman, and inseparably and firmly binding the bond of
matrimony , that they might not, on any account, separate and marry another, except in case of adultery or death."41
Again, we see in this quote from over 100 years after the first impetus of the Anabaptist movement that their
position on the question of divorce and remarriage was unchanged.
Around the turn of the eighteenth century, the Anabaptist/Mennonite movement divided into two camps, the Amish
Mennonites (a conservative renewal after Jakob Amman), and the Reist Mennonites (the more liberal existing group,
named after Hans Reist). In 1779, at Essingen, Germany, the conservative Amish Mennonites convened a
conference to reemphasize their doctrinal and disciplinary positions, and the Essingen Discipline was the fruit of that
meeting.
The very first article of this discipline reads as follows:
"Article One: Concerning the Christian Confession of Faith, just as our forefathers confessed and held to the 33
Articles Confession as it is found in Martyrs Mirror, so do we also hold to the same, together with the Word of God
and the Christian Discipline, and each one shall diligently meditate upon the same and live up to it."
The 33 Articles Confession the conference is referring to here is the very same confession mentioned above which
states clearly and without the possibility of mistake that one "...might not, on any account, separate and marry
another, except in case of adultery or death." Again, we have proof that the conservative Amish-Mennonite
movement of the late 1700's was in full accord with their forefathers on this issue of the possibility of divorce and
remarriage when the offense is adultery.
The consistent and clear biblical position of the Anabaptists is expressed here, and this is conclusive evidence that
for at least the first 250 years of the Anabaptist/Mennonite movement, the biblical position was maintained. It is
impossible to argue with these quotes from primary sources of the movement, for across the spectrum of
nonresistant, biblical Anabaptists, there was a unified stance on this subject. This same position was also expressed
in the old 'Mennonite Catechism' and the 'Shorter Catechism'.
and included in a collection of his writings as early as 1533.
"He who divorces without fornication, the only reason, and remarries, commits adultery; and he who takes a
divorced woman causes her to commit adultery; for Christ says, "These two are one flesh". But he who cleaves to a
harlot, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 6, sins against his own body and is one flesh with the harlot. Thus he is by this act
separated from his own flesh, in that he has attached himself to the alien flesh of the prostitute, and thus the marriage
is broken; for they are no longer one flesh, since the fornicator has become one flesh with the harlot. The one who
finds herself thereby divorced may now marry, whom she will, only let it be in the Lord..."
This tract makes it abundantly clear what the position was in these earliest days of the Anabaptist movement. It was
included with Sattler's other writings in 1533 and widely distributed as the Swiss Brethren's stance on the subject. It requires little commentary, for it is plain he understood marriage to be indissoluble except for
fornication, which breaks the one-flesh bond, thus freeing the innocent party to marry again, but only in the Lord.
In the book 'The Complete Writings of Menno Simons', there are several references to Menno's position on divorce
and remarriage, each of them testifying clearly his essential agreement with Sattler's stance, which this present writer
also accepts as biblical. Following are a few quotes:
"These two, one husband and one wife, are one flesh and can not be separated from each other to marry again
otherwise than for adultery, as the Lord says. Matt. 5:19; Mark 10; Luke 16.
"This is our real position, doctrine, and practice concerning marriage, as we here confess with the holy
Scriptures. By the grace of God it will ever remain the position of all pious souls, let them lie and slander as they
like. We know and confess truly that it is the express ordinance, command, intent, and unchangeable plain word of
Christ."33
"We know too that the bond of undefiled, honorable matrimony is so firm and fast in the kingdom and government
of Christ, that no man may leave his wife, nor a wife her husband, and marry another (understand rightly what Christ
says), except it be for adultery."34
"We acknowledge, teach, and assent to no other marriage than that which Christ and His apostles publicly and
plainly taught in the New Testament, namely, of one man and one woman (Matt. 19:4), and that they may not be
divorced except in case of adultery (Matt. 5:32); for the two are one flesh, but if the unbelieving one depart, a sister
or brother is not under bondage in that case. 1 Cor. 7:15"35
The first two excerpts here quoted leave no doubt as to Menno's understanding of the exception clauses of
Matthew. He approved of the possibility of remarriage for the innocent party after divorce due to adultery. The last
quote from page 200 expresses the same thing when understood in the light shed from the previous two references,
for to him, in this case, it is obvious he understands the departure of the unbeliever is referring to their sexual
unfaithfulness. For a believer in such a situation, they are no longer in bondage to that marriage vow.
In 1554, seven key Dutch Anabaptist leaders, including Menno Simons, Dirk Phillips, and Leonard Bouwens met
together in conference to discuss some pressing issues, and the result was the 'Wismar Articles'.
"Article IV. In the fourth place, if a believer and an unbeliever are in the marriage bond together and the unbeliever
commits adultery, the marriage tie is broken. And if it be one who complains that he has fallen in sin, and desires to
mend his ways, then the brethren permit the believing mate to go to the unfaithful one to admonish him, if
conscience allows it in view of the state of the affair. But if he be a bold and headstrong adulterer, then the innocent
party is free - with the provision, however, that she shall consult with the congregation and remarry according to
circumstances and decisions in the matter, be it well understood."
Dirk Phillips , a fellow bishop with Menno Simons and bulwark of the Anabaptist faith, wrote various tracts, and in
his one on 'The Evangelical Ban and Shunning', as quoted in the 'Dietrich Philip Handbook', he states:
"The Lord desired and commanded that men should do this no more (freely divorce their wives for any cause),
except in case of fornication, which is the only and true reason or cause for which a man may leave or put away his
wife and take another."37
We see here the early Anabaptist position stated by one of their pillars, one who was in full fellowship with others of
the core movement. The biblical simplicity of their understanding was typical of their commitment to take Scripture
in its literal meaning, without regard to man and his preconceptions and theological speculations.
I will turn to one more authoritative source for the Anabaptist movement to express this same position, that being the
monumental work, 'Martyrs Mirror', by Thieleman J. van Braght, written in 1660. In article 25 of a 'Confession of
Faith, according to the Holy Word of God', written about the year 1600, he quotes, that by His words Christ was;
"...re-establishing marriage between one man and one woman, and inseparably and firmly binding the bond of
matrimony , that they might not, on any account, separate and marry another, except in case of adultery or death."41
Again, we see in this quote from over 100 years after the first impetus of the Anabaptist movement that their
position on the question of divorce and remarriage was unchanged.
Around the turn of the eighteenth century, the Anabaptist/Mennonite movement divided into two camps, the Amish
Mennonites (a conservative renewal after Jakob Amman), and the Reist Mennonites (the more liberal existing group,
named after Hans Reist). In 1779, at Essingen, Germany, the conservative Amish Mennonites convened a
conference to reemphasize their doctrinal and disciplinary positions, and the Essingen Discipline was the fruit of that
meeting.
The very first article of this discipline reads as follows:
"Article One: Concerning the Christian Confession of Faith, just as our forefathers confessed and held to the 33
Articles Confession as it is found in Martyrs Mirror, so do we also hold to the same, together with the Word of God
and the Christian Discipline, and each one shall diligently meditate upon the same and live up to it."
The 33 Articles Confession the conference is referring to here is the very same confession mentioned above which
states clearly and without the possibility of mistake that one "...might not, on any account, separate and marry
another, except in case of adultery or death." Again, we have proof that the conservative Amish-Mennonite
movement of the late 1700's was in full accord with their forefathers on this issue of the possibility of divorce and
remarriage when the offense is adultery.
The consistent and clear biblical position of the Anabaptists is expressed here, and this is conclusive evidence that
for at least the first 250 years of the Anabaptist/Mennonite movement, the biblical position was maintained. It is
impossible to argue with these quotes from primary sources of the movement, for across the spectrum of
nonresistant, biblical Anabaptists, there was a unified stance on this subject. This same position was also expressed
in the old 'Mennonite Catechism' and the 'Shorter Catechism'.
