WCF 24.5
Westminster Confession of Faith
24.5. Of Marriage and Divorce
Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce: and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.
Proof texts
- Matt. 1:18, 19, 20 — [18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. [19] And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. [20] But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
- Matt. 5:31, 32 — [31] “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ [32] But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
- Matt. 19:9 — [9] And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
- Rom. 7:2, 3 — [2] For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. [3] Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
For discussion
- The Assembly cited Matt. 1:18, 19, 20 in support of this answer. Read it in context — how does it bear on what is claimed here?
- 4 passages are cited here. Which does the most work, and is anything claimed that the proofs do not obviously carry?
- BC 9.1 treats the same ground. What does it add, and why might it put things differently?
- BC 9.2 treats the same ground. What does it add, and why might it put things differently?
Read alongside
BC 9.1 · BC 9.2 · 1689 25.1 · 1689 25.2 · 1689 25.3 · 1689 25.4 · SC60 8.1 · IAR 6.12 · SHC 10.1 · SHC 10.2 · SD 25.1 · SD 25.2 · SD 25.3 · SD 25.4
Leader's notes
A Commentary on the Confession of Faith (A.A. Hodge): These Sections teach the divine law of marriage as to incest and as to divorce. 1st. Incest consists of sexual intercourse between parties forbidden by the divine law to marry, because of their relationship. Marriage between these parties is impossible; and no matter what may be the provisions of human laws or the decisions of human courts, such pretended marriages are void ab initio — invalid in essence as well as improper and injurious. Since the degrees of relationship within which marriage is excluded differ in nearness, so the crime of incest differs, according to these varying degrees, from the highest to the least measure of criminality. The obligation to avoid intermarriage between near blood-relations is a dictate of nature…
An Exposition of the Confession of Faith (Robert Shaw): In the Mosaic law marriage was expressly forbidden within certain degrees of consanguinity or affinity (Lev. xviii.); and by the laws of our country the prohibition is extended to the same degrees. Marriages contracted within these degrees are in themselves justly deemed invalid, and may properly be dissolved. Moses permitted the Jews, " because of the hardness of their hearts," to put away their wives, to prevent greater evils; but in the ^'ew Testament a divorce is only permitted in case of adultery, or of wilful and obstinate desertion. There can be no question that adultery is a just ground for " the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and, after the divorce, to raarry another, as if the…