|
Mental Marriages By Gene Frost The concept of “mental marriages” and “mental divorces” has been argued for years by those who would justify all second marriages following divorce, but in recent times has been adopted and modified by those who consider themselves conservative on the marriage-divorce issue. It is to this “new twist” that we now address ourselves. In man’s persistent effort to justify remarriages following unlawful divorce, new concepts are continually evolving. The latest effort reasons that divorce is simply a “mental act” with no relationship to civil or social divorcement. And since divorce is the dissolution of marriage, marriage also is a “mental act” with no actual relationship to marriage licenses, ceremonies, or any other social or civil requirement. This heresy is in violation of what the Bible teaches and is pernicious in its consequences. It is born not of sound exegesis but of a desire to circumvent the Lord's teachings. To answer the basic concept and the specious arguments to justify it, we need to begin with a study of what the Bible teaches and then contrast this new theory. Marriage Marriage is a covenantal relationship in which two come together as one, as husband and wife, committing unto one another their lives and fortunes and pledging connubial fidelity. The marriage relationship is established by the marriage covenant (Mal. 2:14), which involves three things: (1) a statement of intent, (2) an oath (or vow) by each to observe the terms of the agreement, and (3) the formal ratification of the covenant by some external act, usually coincident with the oath.l God is a witness of the covenant, often invoked in vows; hence the expression “a covenant of Jehovah” (berlth Yahweh): 1 Sam. 20:8, et al. 1. Agreement. In any covenant, there must be terms to be observed and honored by both parties. This is true of the relationship of husband and wife. Each needs to understand the rights and duties that belong to the relationship. The period following this agreement is the betrothal or engagement. The vows and formal ratification have not taken place, and the parties have no rights to marital privileges. Any sexual activity at this juncture is fornication. It is a pernicious doctrine that teaches where there is agreement followed by sexual intercourse, the result is a valid marriage before God. Not so. There must be a “leaving” father and mother and “cleaving” to one’s wife. (Gen. 2:24, Matt. 19:5) This is not a “mental act,” but an assuming of responsibilities clearly observable. The idea that a couple in an emotional state may decide to get married, and upon that agreement alone have sexual relations, whereupon God then joins them in marriage so that future vows and ratification (as authorized and recognized by society) are unnecessary or at most are mere empty acts reflecting an accomplished fact, is a concept nauseous to the minds of right thinking people and betrays a lack of understanding of what constitutes a covenant. The reason for so pernicious a concept as espoused by some is seen when their concept of divorce is considered. 2. An oath [vow]. The vows to accept and live by the terms of the agreement must be solemnly made. They are publicly acknowledged, usually coincident with the confirmation or ratification. 3. The formal ratification. A public record of the fact that vows have been exchanged imposes upon the parties involved restraints and obligations. The sign of ratification may differ from time to time and from culture to culture. (Originally the word “covenant” (berith) signified the ratification itself.2) It may take the form of passing through the parts of a divided animal (Gen. 15:17, Jer. 34:18), of eating together, of building a mound of stones (Gen. 31:44-46), of mixing blood, of ceremoniously “going in” the marriage tent (Gen. 29:22-23), or of celebrating a marriage feast (Matt. 25:1ff). The particular sign is dictated by society, and in our day and society it is a legal formality. The point is, a covenant to be valid must be ratified: “Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.” (Gal. 3:15) To confirm is “to make valid; to confirm publicly or solemnly, to ratify”3. A relationship without the agreement, vows, and ratification is not a marriage. Bond The “marriage” is the covenantal relationship between a man and woman. It refers to the physical relationship. It may or may not be approved of God; the couple may or may not be bound or yoked in the mind of God. When a couple, with a right to enter marriage, establish the covenant, God yokes them and binds them, i.e. put under restraint and obligation.4 (Matt. 19:6, Rom. 7:2, 1 Cor. 7:39) The bond is not a physical binding; it does not refer to the physical relationship per se. It is rather spiritual (in the mind of God) and legal (divine law): each is placed under obligations and restraints. The breaking of the physical relationship does not of itself break the legal as imposed by God Himself. Confusion results when one equates “marriage,” the physical relationship of living together as husband and wife, with the “bond,” the obligations and restraints imposed by God. The bond does not always exist where there is a marriage, i.e. one may marry without God’s sanction and yoking. In fact, one may be bound to one while married to another. (Rom. 7:2-3) While under obligation and restraint (i.e. right to cohabit with this one and no other), if one “marries” another, God considers it adultery (i.e. sexual immorality outside of the marriage God allows). Though a marriage relationship exists, it is unlawful before God (Matthew 14:4-5) Divorce/Loose Divorce is a dissolution of marriage. It can no more be a mental act than is marriage. It is the breaking of the marriage covenant, a physical fact. God demanded of the Jews a legal signification: a “writing of divorcement” (Deut. 24:1, Matt. 19:7). The dissolution of the marriage may or may not be with God’s approval. If God does not “loose” to make one “free” (from restraint and obligation), the divorce is without God’s approval and one so divorced is not free but must remain “unmarried” or be reconciled. (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:11) Again, to confuse the terms “divorce” and “loose” is to confuse the issue. To reason that if one is “bound” he is still “married,” or if one is “not loosed” he is “not divorced” and hence still “married,” is to produce much confusion and results in a flat denial of many Biblical statements and leads one to equivocate. Yet this is precisely what the “mental marriage and divorce position” does! The New Theory The new marriage concept is that all marriages are lawful in God’s sight; if a relationship called “marriage” is not lawful, then it is not marriage. Likewise, all divorces are lawful; if not lawful, then they are not truly divorces. Therefore, as the Bible speaks of “marriages” not approved of God, the word is used “accommodatively” (as men view the relationship) and not “actually.” So with divorce. There are “marriages, accommodatively speaking,” and there are “marriages actually,” and there are “divorces, accommodatively speaking,” and there are “divorces actually.” Since the Bible does not make this distinction—does not speak of “marriages, accommodatively,” or “marriages, actually”—one does not know when the Lord is speaking of one or the other...except the prophets of the new theory claim to have this insight. However, since Jesus never indicated to His hearers that there is a distinction, the theory has Jesus speaking equivocally. The Jews never realized He so spoke, and obviously then were misled (if the theory be so) without so much as a word of correction from Jesus. To the theorist Matthew 19:9 reads: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (divorce, actually) for the cause of fornication may marry (actually) another. Whosoever shall divorce (accommodatively speaking), without fornication as the cause, and shall marry (accommodatively speaking) committeth adultery (because he is not actually divorced and is actually married): and whoso marrieth her (accommodatively speaking) which is put away (accommodatively speaking) doth commit adultery (because she is not actually divorced). Yet if she which is divorced (accommodatively speaking) did not consent to the divorce (accommodatively speaking) she may mentally divorce (actually) so that he who marries her (actually) does not commit adultery.” To the theorist, when Jesus uses the terms “marry” and “divorce,” one time He means “not really, but accommodatively speaking,” and at other times He means what He says (as the Jews understood Him to mean). In Matthew 19:9 some four situations are contemplated: (1) the man who divorces an unfaithful mate, (2) the man who divorces without cause, (3) the wife divorced because of fornication, and (4) the wife divorced without cause, and in all of these the second mate. (1) Jesus contemplates the man who puts away his wife and marries again, such marriages resulting in adultery except he put away his first mate because of her infidelity. In this case, the theorist says that the divorce is actually divorce. (2) However, in the case of the man divorcing without the stated cause, he commits adultery in a subsequent marriage. In this case, the theorist says, the divorce is not divorce at all: Jesus is speaking accommodatively; the man is still married. Interesting, isn’t it, that Jesus used “put away” {divorce) the one time and yet it carries both the idea of actual divorce and really no divorce at all! Or so the theorist would have us to believe. (3) Then when He speaks of the woman put away, He assigns no cause. Whoever marries a “put away woman” commits adultery, Jesus said. Not so in every case, reasons the theorist, it depends on whether she was put away accommodatively speaking or actually. Jesus made no such distinction. If she was put away because of her guilt, then she was actually divorced, and whoever marries her commits...Well, here the theorists are divided. The old school of “mental divorce” espousers say that she does not commit adultery if actually put away because she is no longer married. The new school admits that she is not actually married, nor bound (equating “bound” and “married,” as they incorrectly do), yet she commits adultery. Why this is adultery, they do not say. It would be interesting to hear the old school and new school of theorists debate the point. (4) If the woman divorced was not guilty, then she is not actually put away, but still married, we are told. However, she may “mentally put away” (actually) her husband who had thought he had put her away, but had not (only “accommodatively” so). The theorists are divided on this point also. One has the “innocent” divorced wife committing adultery when she remarries, but the “guilty” may enter a second marriage with God’s blessings. The other has her guilty if put away for fornication, but not if she is innocent, i.e. if when she was put away she protested; if she agreed to the divorce, then she is guilty in a second marriage. And so in neither case did Jesus tell the truth, according to the theorists. Strange, isn’t it, that Jesus did not assign a reason for the woman being put away, yet the theorists know why. Some know He had (1) the unfaithful wife under consideration. Others know that (2) the put away woman was not guilty but wanted to be put away. One says Jesus was speaking of “actual divorce,” and the other says, No, only accommodatively did He say “divorce.” And these are the men who tell us that they alone understand what Jesus was teaching! (Yes, it takes expert help to misunderstand the Bible.) In reply, why not take Jesus at His word? Something is wrong with the theory that has to read into what He says, one time “actually” and the next “accommodatively.” It is absurd to say that Jesus told the truth if we understand that the woman was accommodatively divorced by mutual agreement with her husband, but His statement is not true if she was accommodatively divorced under protest. Then others say, Jesus told the truth if she was divorced accommodatively (with or without protest), but it is not true if she was actually divorced! In contrast, those who appreciate the truth accept Jesus’ statement as is, and need not to equivocate His terms. The theorists have the same problem with other Scriptures, e.g. Romans 7:3: “So then, if while her husband liveth, she be married”—not actually married, but just imaginedly and so used accommodatively—“to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married”—actually this time—“to another man.” Paul uses “married” twice in this verse, but he did not mean actually “married” both times, according to the theory. In the latter usage the woman was actually “married;” however, in the first usage she was not “married” at all! The theorist has to insert before each usage whether it is used actually or accommodatively. This is eisegesis, not exegesis. The theorist reads into the text. Why these mental gymnastics? The theorist so reasons so that he may find justification for those who are divorced. He simply does not believe that everyone who marries a divorced person commits adultery, as Jesus said in Matthew 19:9b. He has to reason, employing mental gymnastics. Unless there was a cause of fornication in putting away, he reasons there was no putting away. Jesus didn’t mean it when He said it: He was only speaking accommodatively. He is still married to the first woman. That is why, he says, he commits adultery in the second marriage. He has to be married to commit adultery. Remember that he equates “bound” and “married,” making them synonymous. Now the “put away” wife (who is not really, actually put away, but is still married to him) may now mentally put him away as the guilty party. The first divorce was a “hollow act”; the real divorce was a “mental act.” Some reason further that the man, now being actually divorced (and no longer married or bound) is free to remarry. The mental act releases both. The new school theorists contend that only the woman is free. They are at loss, however, to tell us why the guilty mate is not free since he is not married (bound) and is loosed, i.e. is not under restraint or obligation from God. We predict that the new school of “mental divorce” theorists will eventually be driven to join the old school in order to be consistent. Even though they do not agree, they will join hands in the battle to justify the divorced party. Jesus said, “And whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” He said, “And,” not “or.” “And” signifies that the man who puts away (without cause) and marries again commits adultery, and (also, in addition to) whoso marries her who is put away commits adultery. The theorist responds that this is true if “they” divorce each other without cause. But this is not what Jesus said. Ignoring the fact that Jesus said that the man put away the woman, the theorist will read the text: “If a couple divorces...” He assumes that Jesus is saying both wanted the divorce, in which case the divorce is not really a divorce (they remain married). Even after one has committed adultery in a second marriage, the other cannot put him away mentally because this would authorize the “waiting game.” (Why the “waiting game” is wrong would be interesting to learn. The theorist is not so adverse to it, as he might protest.) The only divorced person, he reasons, who has a right to a “mental divorce” is the one in a divorce, accommodatively speaking, who doesn’t want it. If he doesn’t want a divorce, then he can “wait” (and must “wait”) until the partner, to whom he is still actually married, commits adultery. And so the theorist assumes that the woman put away in Matthew 19:9b wanted to be divorced, and only then is the “and” appropriate. But if she had not wanted the divorce Jesus would have said, “or” in case she married first and violated her marriage she would commit adultery. On the other hand, if the man married (accommodatively) first, then neither “and” nor “or” is appropriate...what Jesus said just would not be true! It is a biased mind that would treat the words of Christ thusly. It would be interesting to hear the theorist tell how he knows that the woman of Matthew 19:9b wanted to be put away, that Jesus was talking about “a couple divorcing each other.” Can anyone knowledgeable of the woman’s status in Israel at that time imagine a woman wanting a divorce? Was Jesus illustrating His will by referring to such an obscure case (if one could imagine such a woman)? How does the theorist determine the woman’s feelings, when the question was of the “man” who “puts away his wife”? What language indicates that Jesus is referring to “a couple divorcing”? How does the theorist know the mind of God beyond what He said? Without cavil, in every recorded instance, Jesus said, “Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” (Matt. 5:32; cf. Matt 19:9, Luke 16:18) Nothing is stated as to why she is divorced. Men may reason all day as to whether she desired the divorce, protested the divorce, or whatever. The text says, whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Modern theorists say, “No, Lord, not if she objected!” Moderns write in an exception clause for the divorced person. (Jesus gave an exception to the one who does the putting away.) Consequences Since marriage and divorce is “what takes place between man and God” and is not related to social or legal sanction, so says the theorist, it is argued that the only marriage that counts (that is actual) is that which is mental, and the only actual divorce is the mental divorce. “Marriages” and “divorces” as recognized by society are merely “hollow” terms. 1. If a couple, in an emotional state, decide to be “husband” and “wife,” they may then engage in sexual intercourse with God’s approval. They are then and there actually married. “Hollow” licenses and ceremonies are superfluous. If this be true, then most acts of “fornication” are not that at all. Invariably a seducer will promise a girl a “wedding,” but until then they may be sexually active as husband and wife. Anyone who has had any counselling experience at all knows how prevalent this is. But with the theorist, it was no seduction at all...they are honorably and lawfully married by God! This offers many impossible situations: a. In the case of the “seducer,” what he considered seduction in mentally considering himself the “husband” and the girl “his wife,” was actually marriage. Therefore, even though he repents of what he thought was fornication, in marrying someone else he commits adultery and lives in that sinful relationship. b. His present spouse, with all good conscience, is unknowingly living in adultery with no way of knowing the truth. There are no licenses to check, no records...the marriage was mental! c. The “seduced” woman if now “married” (the theorist would say, accommodatively speaking) to someone other than her seducer (actual “husband”), she is living in adultery. Her husband is living in adultery with no way of knowing the truth (the fact was a mental act). d. If the “seducer” mentally did not marry (actually), the girl who mentally married him is not really married but does not know it, and has no way of determining it short of reading his mind (since it is a mental act). (1) She may now be in agony, thinking she was married, when she is not. Her agony is compounded if she is now married to another. (2) The seducer may now continue his seduction because she is convinced they are married, and she has no right to marry another. (Actually she mentally is right but the relationship is fornication because he had mental reservation and lied.) e. If the man mentally married the girl, but she considered the sexual act fornication, then the man is in agony thinking he is actually married. But he cannot know for sure—he did not read her mind. Really! How one can seriously espouse such a doctrine as “mental marriage” is an amazement. It is born out of a desire to circumvent the Lord’s will rather than out of sound exegesis. 2. If one’s mate is guilty of adultery, the “innocent” mate may “at any time,” we are told, put away the guilty. This is a mental act. Consider the impossible situations: a. A man may forgive a guilty mate, and she may repent and be forgiven by God, and the man may receive her in a renewed sexual relationship. After some time, he may “exercise his right” and mentally put her away. Unknowingly, thereafter she is living in adultery. b. Or he may put her away, but then desire his ex-wife sexually and commit adultery with her, while she thinks they are still married, which they are only accommodatively speaking. c. A man may divorce, accommodatively speaking, but mentally remain married. Thus the woman may live honorably before God with her husband, while in the eyes of society be living with a man from whom she is divorced. Has God left so important and sacred relationship in so precarious a position that it may be made and broken by mental action unrelated to the regulations and sanction of society and state? No. It is a covenantal relationship before God in which society is respected. “Let marriage be held in honor among all...” (Heb. 13:4) 1John M’Clintock and James Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblica, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, vol. II, page 544. 2M’Clintock and Strong, op cit., vol.ll, page 543. 3Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, page 366. 4Thayer, op cit., page 131 NOTE: This article is copyrighted, and may not to be downloaded and distributed in any form. Please honor the copyright laws. To obtain copies for distribution, order the entire series of articles in booklet form. |
|