The Two Types Of Mental Divorce
The purpose of this article is to Biblically refute the “mental divorce” position advocated by many of our brethren in the past and today. Because some holding to the mental divorce view don’t go as far as others, I usually classify the positions into two different types. Both types say (contrary to God’s word) that a put away woman may remarry if her original husband commits fornication. The first type would allow that remarriage regardless of when the fornication took place. Even if the man commits fornication after he legally divorces his wife unscripturally, this position says she may remarry. The second type would not allow the put away woman to remarry if the fornication (on the part of the man) occurred after the termination of the marriage, but would allow her remarriage only if his fornication took place before the divorce, even though she is not the one who secured the divorce.
Mental Divorce, Type I
The first type of mental divorce is described by the following two quotes defending it:
Weldon E. Warnock (Searching the Scriptures, Nov 1985): But someone asks: ‘What about a woman who is put away (divorced) by a man simply because the man no longer wanted to be married? Fornication is not involved and the woman repeatedly tried to prevent the divorce, but to no avail. After a couple of years the man marries another woman. Is the ‘put way’ woman then free to marry?’ She certainly is, if she puts away her husband for fornication. She would have to do this before God in purpose of heart (see why we call it “mental” divorce? – ptd) since the divorce has already taken place, legally speaking. She could not go through the process of having a legal document charging her husband with ‘adultery,’ but God would know …
Ron Halbrook (1986 document): But if he commits adultery (before or after his action in the courts of man), there is something else to be said by divine law-by the moral and spiritual law of the court of God. She now may put away, reject, or divorce him as a moral and spiritual act.
Luke 16:18
The above positions are clearly contradicted by Luke 16:18 which reads “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” This verse envisions a man let’s call him Fred, who puts away his wife Ethel unlawfully (not for fornication), and then marries Jane. The verse goes on to say it is adultery if someone marries Ethel at this point, after Fred has put her away, and even after Fred has remarried and committed adultery “against” (Mark 10:11) Ethel. This is the exact scenario that our brethren Warnock and Halbrook are defending in their quotes above. Let me make it clear this isn’t the only scenario Luke 16:18b condemns, but if it condemned only one scenario, the Warnock/Halbrook position would be it.
Matthew 19:9 For Fornication
Next let’s focus in on the “for fornication” option implied by Matthew 19:9a. It would imply “Whosoever shall put away his wife, for fornication, and shall marry another, doth not commit adultery.” So for a man to be able to remarry (after divorce) without committing adultery, three things must be true:
his original wife must have committed fornication
he must have put away that wife
fornication must have been the reason he put away (divorced) his wife
Repeating condition #2, the man must have been the one to put away his wife, not the other way around. This contradicts Mr. Warnock’s and (my personal friend) Ron’s position which says the man may remarry (as long as his previous wife commits fornication somewhere along the way), even if he was not the one to actually secure the divorce. Some only want to emphasize the cause for divorce, but Jesus emphasizes both the cause and who does the putting away.
Matthew 19:9 Four Categories
I’ve heard more than one preacher correctly break Matthew 19:9 down into four categories of people:
The one who puts away their spouse for fornication does not commit adultery when they remarry.
The one who puts away their spouse for a reason other than fornication commits adultery when they remarry.
The one who is put away by their spouse for fornication commits adultery when they remarry.
The one who is put away by their spouse for a reason other than fornication commits adultery when they remarry.
Our brothers Warnock and Halbrook are defending a person who falls into category #4, one who God says commits adultery (Luke 16:18b).
Fornication Alone Does Not Break The Bond
We all agree if a man cheats on (commits fornication against) his wife, that the marriage bond does not necessarily terminate at the point of that fornication. No, the wife has the option of divorcing her husband for fornication (Matthew 5:32). But she may decide to stay with her husband. In that case, the marriage bond remains intact. So we all agree it is not fornication by itself that breaks the marriage bond; it is divorce for the cause of fornication that breaks the bond. But the Warnock/Halbrook position says a woman’s bond with her previous husband is broken, simply based upon the fact her previous husband has committed fornication, even though she didn’t divorce him for that fornication (instead, he divorced her).
Two Ways To Break The Bond
The Bible only gives two ways the marriage bond can be broken (leaving a person free to remarry without committing adultery):
Romans 7:2-3 the death of the spouse
Matthew 19:9 the divorce of the spouse for fornication
Neither of the above has occurred with respect to the woman of the Warnock/Halbrook scenario. Her husband has not died. And she has not divorced her husband for fornication; instead, he has divorced her. If Fred divorces Ethel and marries Jane, Ethel is still bound/obligated to Fred, therefore she is not free to remarry without committing adultery (Romans 7:2-3).
They Are “Put Away”
The Warnock/Halbrook scenario justifies a “put away” woman remarrying, but Jesus said three times marrying a put away woman results in adultery (the reason is because she is still bound/obligated to her former husband, Romans 7:2-3):
1. Matthew 5:32b “whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery”
2. Matthew 19:9b “whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery”
3. Luke 16:18b “whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery”
Some teach as if it doesn’t matter who gets the divorce. Well according to Jesus, it makes a big difference who gets the divorce! Jesus describes one spouse as doing the putting away and the other spouse as the one who is put away. The one who is doing the putting away may remarry scripturally if their putting away was for the cause of fornication. The one being put away may not remarry scripturally no matter what the cause for the divorce was.
Reversing God’s Order
The first type of mental divorce is reversing God’s order. The Baptist does this when he puts salvation in front of baptism in reverse of the order given by Jesus in Mark 16:16. The Warnock/Halbrook position allows remarriage to occur even if the divorce occurs before the fornication, which is the reverse of the Bible order, which says the divorce must be for fornication, necessarily implying the fornication must occur before the divorce.
Mental Divorce, Type II
I received an e-mail on September 27, 2001, where Harry Osborne wrote “I believe the vast majority would also affirm that an innocent party in a marriage sundered for the cause of fornication has the right to remarry even if the guilty fornicator filed first and secured the civil divorce. … the vast majority have agreed with me.” As you can see, this quote not only reveals its author doesn’t really believe that truth is not decided by the majority (Matthew 7:13-14), but also defends the second type of mental divorce as I classified them in this article’s introduction. Both of these types of mental divorce stand or fall together. If one can get a scriptural divorce mentally, why would it make any difference if the fornication occurred before or after the civil court action? It would only matter if the fornication occurred before the mental divorce (repudiation), right?
What Constitutes A Divorce Is Not The Critical Issue
Though Harry tried to argue the critical difference between us is “what constitutes a divorce?” (and we will deal with that question momentarily), that is not the real issue. Realize that when a fornicator goes to the trouble of securing a civil divorce against his innocent mate, he almost certainly has, somewhere along the line, mentally and verbally “repudiated” (the mental divorce advocate’s synonym for “put away”) his wife. According to the mental divorce position then, that would mean the innocent wife is “put away” even before the legal divorce is secured by either party. Therefore (by that reasoning) the innocent wife would be a “put away” woman even if she ended up securing the legal divorce against her husband for fornication. But Harry would correctly allow that woman to remarry, even though she had been repudiated (“put away” according to Harry’s thinking). This tells me the real issue is not “what constitutes a divorce,” but the real issue is, is it possible for a fornicator to unlawfully put away his mate? In effect, Harry’s position says no that it is not possible. But Luke 16:18 shows it is very possible (though not scriptural) for any man (fornicator or not) to put away his wife in a sinful way.
What Does “Put Away” Mean?
Let me repeat emphatically, the question about what constitutes a “putting away” is not the critical issue in the “mental divorce” controversy. Even if we agreed with the “mental divorce” false teachers on what constitutes a divorce, they would still be wrong in saying that a put away (“repudiated” is their meaning) woman could remarry if her rightful husband has committed adultery. But “what constitutes a divorce?” is a difference between us, so let’s examine it. As you might suspect, our English word “divorce” is a good synonym for “apoluo” (“put away” in Matthew 19:9). This can be seen by reading the definitions for “apoluo” in Thayer’s, Strong’s, Vine’s, Berry’s, The Analytical Greek Lexicon, and Green’s Greek Concordance, each of which mentions the English word “divorce” in defining the word. English translations also bear this out as “apoluo” is translated into a form of the word “divorce” in Matthew 5:32 in the KJV, and Matthew 5:32 (twice), 19:3, 9, Mark 10:11, 12, and Luke 16:18 in the NKJV and NASV. Knowing that our English word “divorce” is a good synonym for “apoluo,” it would make sense then to define “divorce” from an English dictionary. (for the same reason we might use a Greek dictionary to define “baptizo” as “immerse” and then use our English dictionary to find out that “immerse” means “to cover completely in a liquid; submerge.”) Here are some ways “divorce” is defined by English dictionaries at http://www.dictionary.com (my emphasis):
The legal dissolution of a marriage
To end marriage with (one’s spouse) by way of legal divorce
To dissolve the marriage contract
A legal dissolution of the marriage contract by a court or other body having competent authority. This is properly a divorce, and called, technically, divorce
the legal dissolution of a marriage
get a divorce; formally terminate a marriage
Admittedly the above method for determining the meaning for “apoluo” is not intended to be complete, because I did not exhaust all the given definitions, and because some English dictionaries give modern definitions for words (like “sprinkle, pour, or immerse” for “baptize”). But I did want the reader to see those definitions, as they have a huge bearing on our issue. It seems in our society, divorce involves a legal procedure, doesn’t it? Indeed, isn’t that the way we’ve always understood the word, until the recent attempts to justify these type of unlawful re-marriages?
What Is The Procedure For “Putting Away”
So how do we know that in the United States, a legal procedure must be followed to divorce a spouse? Because God teaches in passages like Romans 13:1 and I Peter 2:13 we must follow the laws of the land. Since the laws of the U.S. require a legal procedure be followed in getting a divorce, then we must follow/obey that. I am confident the reader will agree with this when it comes to getting married. Who among us thinks a young couple can avoid fornication together by simply asserting to the elders that they are married, without actually doing what State law prescribes (marriage license, etc.)? So if you don’t believe in “mental” marriages, then why would you believe in “mental” divorces? We are bound by the law of our society in other areas too. The speed limit is one example all would agree with.
Conclusion: It Matters Who Gets The Divorce
One preacher said, “I never really thought it made any difference who got the divorce.” Well, Luke 16:18 forever shows it does matter who gets the divorce. If it didn’t matter, the put away woman of the ‘b’ part of this verse would be allowed to remarry, since her husband had committed adultery against her. But even though he had committed adultery, the verse still says her remarriage would result in adultery. The reason is because she did not secure the divorce from her husband. She had the grounds, but she couldn’t take advantage of those just grounds because her husband had already divorced her. The marriage was no longer in existence. The marital bond still existed, but not the marriage. So there was nothing left to divorce (put away).
Because of passages like Philippians 1:17, Acts 15:2,7, 17:17, 19:8-9, Matthew 22:15-46, John 3:19-21, and Jude 3, I asked all three of the men named/quoted in this article in years gone by to defend what they believe in public (oral) debate against either me or another capable man (their choice). But sadly, all three refused.
hear Bible Crossfire Sunday nights at 8:00 central on SiriusXM radio Family Talk 131 and 59 local stations across America or at www.BibleCrossfire.com