Mental Divorce

By Paul K. Williams

Another recent doctrine redefines what the word “divorce” means. The proponents of this theory say that when a person (usually a man) divorces his mate for a cause other than fornication, the divorce is not a “valid” divorce. They have said that when one divorces his wife for a cause other than fornication, the divorce is a “farce”, not a real divorce. Because it is not for the cause of fornication, God does not recognize the divorce; the legal divorce means nothing in God’s sight. Later, when the former wife realizes that her ex-husband is not coming back to her and was committing adultery all the time, she can then decide to “divorce” her ex-husband for the cause of adultery. Since there is no legal way for her to do this, it is a mental act, thus the reason I call it “mental divorce”. This becomes the “valid” divorce and she, therefore, has the right to remarry.

Incidentally, the reasoning that allows the wife to divorce her husband for adultery in her mind after he divorces her legally, will allow her to wait until he commits adultery after the divorce and then divorce him mentally. Though the proponents of this theory do not like this consequence of their teaching, it appears to me to be the logical conclusion. If the legal divorce is not a divorce, then if the ex-husband commits adultery after the legal divorce, their doctrine will allow the woman to mentally divorce her husband and remarry without sin. This has been called “the waiting game.” Most of those who are teaching “mental divorce” claim not to believe in the waiting game, but I believe their doctrine allows it.

I consider this to be a very dangerous doctrine. I am persuaded that it is giving comfort to people who are living in adultery. The plain words of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 show that the doctrine is false. Let’s read those verses again.

“but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” – Matthew 5:32 (NASB)

“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” – Matthew 19:9 (NASB)

Jesus says that a man “divorces” his wife when she is not guilty of unchastity (fornication). That is what Jesus calls the act. He calls it “divorce”. He does not call it “unrecognized divorce” or “farcical divorce” or “invalid divorce”. He uses a word which his hearers and his readers can easily understand. He uses the word “marries” in the same way. He does not say, “marries in an unrecognized way” or “marries in a farcical way” or “marries in an invalid way”. The man “divorces” the woman, and she “marries” another. Simple. Easy to understand.

Understanding the teaching is easy. Any woman who has been divorced by her husband, regardless of the reason for the divorce, commits adultery if she marries another man. The only problem is—we don’t like that teaching. We want to find some way out.

So those who are teaching the new theory have redefined the words used by Jesus. But it won’t work. Read those verses again. Jesus calls it “divorce” whether it is for the cause of adultery or not. The ONE word is used for both circumstances. It has to mean the same in both cases. There is no way it can be “divorce” for the cause of adultery but “no divorce” in other cases.

Long articles with complicated reasoning will not change this plain truth. There is no room for “mental divorce” in Matthew 5:32 or 19:9. The quote below deals with this very adequately:

“It is the contention of this writer that it is a flagrant violation of language and reasoning to argue that a person is divorced and yet married to the person from whom he/she is divorced. A person may be divorced unscripturally, but he/she is yet divorced; and a person divorced from another person is not married to that person. This business of insisting that one may be divorced ‘in the eyes of men’ and not divorced ‘in the eyes of God’ is nonsense. God may not approve of a given action (divorce or whatever), but that does not mean that the action does not occur because God does not approve of it. A divorce without scriptural grounds is yet a divorce and renders the person divorced ‘unmarried.’ The argument being advanced here is that: ‘All actions not approved of by God become non-actions or actions which do not occur.’ If this is the case, then is it legitimate in any sense to speak of an action as having occurred when in actuality it did not occur? It is far better to take the language of a given text as meaning what it says (i. e. married means married, divorced means divorced), than to play this game of semantical gymnastics wherein words do not mean what they mean.” [Maurice W. Lusk, III, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Teachings of Jesus and Paul (Atlanta: Guild of Scribes, 1982), pp. 44ff] &

Editor’s Note: The above article by Paul K. Williams is even timelier, now, than when he first wrote it, more than ten years ago.

It Won’t Do Any Good!

By J. F. Dancer, Jr.

Have you ever closed your mind on a subject? Do, you know that when you do that that you put yourself in a position that you cannot learn anything else about it? You are assuming that you know all there is to know on the topic under consideration. Do you know some people are like that when it comes to talking about the Bible and about religion? They don't want to discuss what they believe or what the Bible teaches. They have learned all they intend to learn and have closed their mind on the subject.

Jesus talked about such people as these in Matt. 13:10-15. Isaiah had spoken of such people years before in Isa. 6:9, 10. Paul found a few people like this in Rome (Acts 28:27). And I am sure that there are still some living in our time. Are you one of them? Put yourself to the following test and see if you are one of these - if so, please change.

1.  Are you willing to study carefully any subject the Bible teaches?

2.  Do you feel that a study is a waste of time as far as you learning more?

3.  Have you made any changes in your understanding of the Bible in the last 5 years?

4.  Do you really listen when someone is disagreeing with you on religious matters?

These 4 questions may help us to see if we have closed our eyes to keep from seeing and have hardened our hearts to keep from understanding and making some changes. Let us be willing to study with an open mind. &

Answering Religious Error

By Bob Myhan

Jesus said, "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). The word "must" means it is imperative that our worship is "in spirit and truth."

To worship "in spirit" is to worship sincerely (see Josh. 24:14). To worship "in truth" is to worship in accordance with truth. Of course, “truth” is the word of God (John 17:17). Sincerity is essential but, like faith (James 2:14-26), it is not enough, if it is "alone."

The Pharisees of Jesus' day were making their worship "vain" because they were "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men;" and "making the word of God of no effect through...tradition.” (Mark 7:1-13) Is it not possible to do the same thing, today?

Many people think it is mean to question the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship to God, or to criticize anything in the worship of others. It is never our purpose to criticize the worship of others just for the sake of criticizing. We are only trying to impress upon our readers the necessity of making sure that one's worship is "in spirit and truth." After all, Jesus said that it “must” be.

God said, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hosea 4:6). Is this not possible, today? Dear reader, do not allow yourself to be “destroyed for lack of knowledge.” Do not worship God “in vain.” Worship Him, rather, “in spirit and truth.” &