Objections & Misconceptions
Sadly, not everyone believes what the Scriptures teach in this matter. This teaching is passionately and zealously opposed by some and swiftly and thoughtlessly disregarded by many. Why? Let's look at some of the reasons why some say that one cannot put away their mate for fornication and remarry following an unlawful divorce.
The "Put-Away" Status
A common belief people have is that no put away person can remarry. This is so common and so often stated that you could almost be led to believe that those words were actually found in Scripture -- "no put away person can remarry." This phrase is not in the Bible. Furthermore, it is not taught in the Bible.
This phrase is worded in such a way so as to make it an absolute. That is, the rule that no put away person can remarry is without exception. Those who promote this idea are being quite misleading (perhaps unwittingly) by this statement. Even they don't believe this is an absolute. Why? Because even they acknowledge the New Testament gives exceptions to this. One who is put away can remarry if their spouse dies (Rom. 7:2-3). Also, one who is put away can remarry their original mate (1 Cor. 7:10-11). Those who oppose the teaching set forth in this material, for the most part believe these are exceptions to the "no put away person can remarry" rule. Yet they teach it anyway as being absolute. Why? Perhaps they see it as a convenient way to oppose this perceived heresy and deceive people into joining their opposition of it. Maybe they teach this in ignorance. The Lord knows their heart. I will not attempt to pass judgment on their motives.
What is the intended use of this rule? To prohibit one from putting away their mate for fornication and remarrying simply because their mate has already put them away. The passage that is used to make this prohibition is Matthew 19:9b -- "whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (KJV). Does this teach that no put away person can remarry?
Notice first that Jesus says "her which is put away." He does not say "one which is put away." This is not an absolute prohibition against remarriage on the part of one who has been put away. We saw that earlier. So who is the "her" of this passage? It is essential we understand this because Jesus did not say "no put away person can remarry." He said this woman cannot remarry.
In Matthew 19:9, we have two hypothetical situations presented by Jesus. First, a man puts away his wife for fornication. Second, a man puts away his wife for just any cause. In the first case, the woman is the guilty fornicator. We all agree that one who commits adultery has no right to remarry. In the second case, the woman is put away for a cause other than fornication. Can she remarry? No. Why not? She has not put away her husband for fornication (Mt. 19:9). Until and unless she does that, she has no right to remarry so long as her husband lives.
Do the Scriptures teach then that a put away person can remarry? In some circumstances, yes. But not every put away person is given this permission by God. Those whose spouse has died (Rom. 7:2-3), those who are being reconciled to their bound mate (1 Cor. 7:10-11), and those who put away their mate for fornication (Mt. 19:9) can marry, even after being put away.
Civil Procedure
Another reason why some fail to accept what the Bible teaches on this issue is their understanding of the role of civil government in marriage and divorce. They don't understand how one can put away their mate when they have already been civilly divorced. After all, they can no longer go down to the courthouse and file for divorce against their spouse. What is left for them to do? They can no longer follow the civil divorce procedure to put away their mate.
First of all, Jesus never specified any sort of procedure for one to use in putting away their mate. Secondly, we need to remember that marriage is a divine institution. It is regulated by the laws of God. Nowhere does the New Testament give civil authorities any role in establishing marriages and divorces.
After hearing this point, some are quick to respond with the fact that Christians are to obey the civil authorities. This is absolutely true. Romans 13 clearly teaches that we are to "be in subjection to the governing authorities" (v. 1). We have the responsibility to do this so long as the laws imposed by those authorities do not conflict with God's law (Acts 5:29). Like marriage, civil government is an institution ordained by God. The authorities are in place to carry out certain responsibilities. But one would search in vain to find any verse in Romans 13 or elsewhere that gives civil authority any role in establishing marriages and divorces.
Civil governments may choose to recognize or record marriages and divorces. This is what the government does in our country. Since the governing authorities choose to do this, Christians should follow whatever it is they deem necessary to recognize and record marriages and divorces per the instructions in Romans 13.
But what about one who would put away their spouse? Can they put away their spouse by filing for divorce in the court of law? Certainly. This can be an expedient way for one to put away their mate. But is this the only way? For this to be the only way, we have to see one of two things in Scripture. Either Jesus had to specify a civil procedure as the way for one to put away their spouse, or the New Testament has to teach that the civil authorities play a role in establishing marriages and divorces. Jesus specified no procedure, civil or otherwise. And civil authorities are given no role by God in establishing marriages and divorces. Therefore, one may put away their mate, even if the civil procedure is unavailable (as is typically the case when one has been put away by their mate already).
Second Putting-Away
Some oppose this teaching because it advocates, they say, a "second putting-away." The argument is that since the Scriptures nowhere speak of a "second putting-away," there is no authority for it. Therefore, once one has been put away, even if their spouse later commits fornication, they're "hung." Is this a legitimate argument?
A parallel can be made on this point with the Lord's Supper. Controversy has arisen among brethren about whether or not we have authority for a second serving of the Lord's Supper on Sunday evening. Those who oppose a second serving use the fact that we cannot read of a second serving in the New Testament as one reason why it is wrong to offer it. While it is true that a second serving of the Lord's Supper is not specifically mentioned, we can certainly find authority for it in the teachings of the New Testament. Christians are commanded to partake of the Lord's Supper in the assembly on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 11:23-33; Acts 20:7). Provided there's an assembly and it's the first day of the week, one has the right to fulfill this command.
The same is true in regards to this issue. Provided one has been faithful to their marriage vows (Mt. 5:32) and their spouse has committed fornication (Mt. 19:9), they have the right to put them away and remarry. Does it matter that it's a "second putting-away"? No! Remember, Jesus specified divorce cause, not timing. We don't have to be able to read of a "second putting-away" in Scripture for it to be authorized any more than we have to read of a second serving of the Lord's Supper for that to be authorized. The New Testament teaches that one has the right to put away their mate for fornication and remarry. The fact that the guilty fornicator has already put away the innocent spouse is irrelevant.
Mental Divorce
The common name used for the doctrine presented here by those who oppose it is "mental divorce." One who advocates this view is labeled as a "mental divorcer." What is "mental divorce"? By the title, one might think it refers to a doctrine which holds that the only action involved in putting away a mate is mental action. Instead of putting away a mate, one would think them away. To my knowledge, no one in this controversy believes that Biblical putting away is a mere mental act.
So what is meant by the term "mental divorce" if it does not describe a doctrine that teaches putting away is merely a mental act? The answer can be found by looking at the doctrine of the opponents of "mental divorce." Since the term is simply an invention of theirs to describe the doctrine they oppose, we know it has to describe something they do not teach. What do they teach? They teach all, or a combination of the following: no put away person can remarry, one must use a civil procedure to put away their mate, and no "second putting away" is authorized in Scripture. Those who do not teach such, are "mental divorcers."
Remember in Matthew 19:3, Jesus was asked about a lawful cause for divorce. He answered that the only cause that extended the permission for one to put away their spouse was fornication. We all agree on that point. But we also need to remember that Jesus was not asked about, nor did He address, procedure or timing. To oppose "mental divorce" is a subtle way of binding what they believe to be the proper procedure or timing.
Opponents of this "mental divorce" can't seem to grasp this point. They wonder how one can possibly put away their mate without their procedure and timing. So anyone who believes one can put away their mate without using the procedure and timing they deem necessary, must believe in "mental divorce." After all, following an unlawful divorce, there's nothing left to put away. That is their reasoning. But there most certainly is something left to be put away -- one's bound mate. Jesus said one could do this for fornication and remarry.
What would one do then to put away their spouse after they have been put away. Basically, they do the opposite of what they did in order to be married. In marriage, one vows. In putting away, one disavows. In marriage, one promises to fulfill marital responsibilities. In putting away, one says they will no longer fulfill these responsibilities. In marriage, one accepts the other as their mate. In putting away, one rejects the other as their mate. In marriage, one enters into a life-long covenant. In putting away, one releases himself (with God's permission in the case of fornication) from the marriage covenant.
The fact is, no one advocates true "mental divorce." It is simply a prejudicial term used by some to label any who will not accept their binding of a divorce procedure or timing. Jesus never bound a certain procedure or timing in regards to putting away. If we "speak as the oracles of God" (1 Pet. 4:11), we won't either.
The Waiting Game
Often times, those who teach the doctrine professed in this booklet are said to believe in the "waiting game." What is the "waiting game"?
The "waiting game" describes the scenario in which a couple puts each other away. Then, whoever is able to "wait" the longest without committing fornication has the right to remarry. That is, they simply wait until their spouse commits fornication, and then they put them away again and remarry. Basically, this teaching says one can put away their spouse for a cause other than fornication, wait for their spouse to eventually commit fornication, then put them away again and remarry.
The New Testament clearly condemns the "waiting game" concept. Matthew 5:32 teaches that one is guilty of causing their mate to commit adultery when they put them away for a cause other than fornication. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches that when one leaves, they have two options -- "remain unmarried, or else be reconciled." There is no third option of waiting until their spouse commits fornication and then putting them away again.
It is simply a false misrepresentation to claim that anyone who advocates the teachings in this material believes in the "waiting game." The doctrines are not synonymous. The "waiting game" holds that one may put away their spouse for just any cause, wait for them to commit fornication, then put them away again, this time for fornication. This is not taught in the Bible. Instead, the Bible teaches that one may put away their mate for fornication and remarry.
