Taking Exception to Making Exception
 

by Gary P. Eubanks

There is one point which requires clarification, if not correction, in an otherwise excellent and important article written by Dub McClish (The Auburn Beacon, June 24, 2018) to address a couple of misunderstandings of Paul’s instructions regarding marriage and divorce (1 Cor. 7).  Brother McClish rightly says that fornication on the part of one’s spouse is the only exception Jesus cites to His statement that divorcing one’s spouse and marrying another involves one in adultery (Matt. 19:9). However, he also says, “Jesus teaches that when a marriage dissolves apart from the cause of fornication, neither party has the right to remarry unless and until the one abandoning the marriage has committed or commits fornication (Mat. 19:9).  In such a case, only the innocent spouse has that Scriptural right.”  Thus, he envisions “a marriage [which] dissolves apart from the cause of fornication.”  He correctly concludes from this that “neither party has the right to remarry … .”  (His use of the word, “remarry,” in this clause, also shows that the divorce has occurred.)  Yet, he proceeds to qualify this by saying “unless and until the one abandoning the marriage has committed or commits fornication (Matt. 19:9).”  It is apparent that he includes, or is referring to, fornication which is committed following the dissolution of the marriage by the spouse who obtained the divorce.  Otherwise, why would he have said earlier in the sentence that “a marriage dissolves apart from the cause of fornication”? So, he conceives of a divorce which one spouse secures on a basis other than the fornication of the other spouse.  He acknowledges that, at this point, “neither party has the right to remarry.”  Yet, his implication is that, if “the one abandoning the marriage has committed or commits fornication (Matt. 19:9),” at some point subsequent to the divorce (or, perhaps, before the divorce but without the knowledge of the divorced party until afterward), then “the innocent spouse has that Scriptural right” (to marry another). Thus, he seems to allude to “mental divorce,” a concept so called because of the insistence of its proponents that an unwilling spouse in a divorce which has taken place on grounds other than fornication has the right to “divorce” the spouse who commits fornication subsequent to the divorce and marry another.  This later, second “divorce” is essentially mental in nature, rather than civil or legal.  This is because a court has already granted a divorce, thus depriving the innocent spouse of any recourse there.  Hence, any “divorce” on the part of the innocent spouse basically can only take the form of a personal resolution to repudiate the spouse in a marriage which has already been legally dissolved. Much could be said in opposition to this concept, but in the interest of brevity, only three points will be considered: First, it contrives a “divorce” which does not, and cannot, take place.  The simplest and most obvious way to put this is to observe that a person who has already been divorced by a spouse cannot then divorce that spouse who has already divorced him or her, any more than one can kill someone already dead.  It ought to be evident that two people married to each other once cannot get divorced from each other twice. The Scriptures know nothing of any kind of divorce except one which is implemented and recognized by the law which is applicable to the couple involved.  God has never given to individuals the strictly independent, personal power to divorce outside the procedure established by law (cf. Deut. 24:1; Isa. 50:1; Jer. 3:8).  Perhaps more to the point is the fact that once a divorce has taken place through compliance with whatever the requirements established in the law might be, then it is simply not possible for either party to divorce the other (unless they remarry each other between the divorces). Indeed, there is no mention of, or provision for, “mental divorce” in the Scriptures.  Its proponents cannot point to a single instance therein where people “divorced” spouses by whom they had already been divorced.  [In fact, no necessity to do so would have been felt.  It was not until Jesus explicitly stated that the divorced person who marries another commits adultery (Matt. 5:32; Lk. 16:18) that anyone even conceived of the need for a “second, mental divorce” (cf. Deut. 24:2) in order to change the status of the martially-ineligible “put away” person into that of a martially-eligible “putting away” person.  Since this cannot be done in the court, which has already granted a divorce, the only resort of the “put away” party is “mental divorce.”  Hence, “mental divorce” is a concept specifically concocted for the purpose of circumventing the celibacy requirement which Jesus implied was the consequence of being divorced.] Second, it contradicts Jesus, who said, “… And whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Lk. 16:18b, KJV).  Jesus made no exception to that, but mental divorce, in effect, says this is not true.  Instead, it makes a big exception, or loophole, which largely negates what Jesus said.  Contrary to what He said, mental divorce proponents say that the man who marries a woman who is put away from her husband does not commit adultery, as long as this woman has waited until her (former) husband commits fornication, whereupon she can (mentally) “divorce” him for fornication and be free to marry another man. Third, mental divorce corrupts the order given in the Scriptures.  That order is:  marriage, fornication (on the part of one’s spouse), divorce (for that cause), and marriage to another (Matt. 19:9).  However, the order according to the mental divorce concept is:  marriage, (civil) divorce, fornication, (mental) divorce, and remarriage.  Of significance is the fact that, in these two scenarios, the order of fornication and divorce is switched.  (Beyond this, in the first, or Biblical, scenario, there is just one divorce.  In the second scenario, there are two divorces:  one civil and the other mental.) Mental divorce proponents would not tolerate additions to, or changes in, the order of God’s terms of pardon for the (alien) sinner.  For instance, who would allow the order of belief and baptism (Mk. 16:16) to be switched to baptism and belief, as in the case of infant baptism? It is difficult to overstate the seriousness of this point.  Since the person who does not have enough respect for God’s law not to divorce a spouse will probably not have enough respect for His law to remain celibate, “mental divorce” has the effect of “allowing” remarriage to many who would not otherwise feel free to marry another.  If the “mental divorce” concept is right, then many are guilty of unnecessarily imposing the hardship of life-long celibacy on themselves or others (1 Tim. 4:1-3).  On the other hand, if the “mental divorce” concept is wrong, it encourages many to commit adultery by entering marriages for which they are not Scripturally eligible.  This is not a point on which anyone can afford to dither or obfuscate.       Other Articles by Gary P. Eubanks The Sojourning of the Israelites These Things Became Our Examples The Pharisee Shield Review of Radical Restoration Chapter 1  Talking Code If You Remain Silent - Intolerance of Controversy Fathers, Divorce and Brethren The Sunday Supper Negative About Positivism   For Past Auburn Beacons go to: www.aubeacon.com/Bulletins.htm   Anyone can join the mailing list for the Auburn Beacon! Send your request to: larryrouse@aubeacon.com