XIV: The Elephant in the Room

23 November 2005 Common Era

In the church today, there is an elephant in the room that, apparently, everyone thinks will just go away if it's ignored.

It's mental divorce.

There seems to be some lack of clarity about this issue, and there are many who have difficulty understanding it. The term is rather expansive and can refer to a broad spectrum of beliefs.

(Note before we begin: for clarity's sake, I will speak as the man putting the woman away. It can work the other way, but general terms many times confuse more than not.)

The belief, in general, is the idea that a woman having been put away for any reason other than adultery has the right to turn around and put away her husband if the latter marries another or engages in any form of sexually deviant behavior.

The aforementioned spectrum would go as follows: on one end would be that such is only true if the man had previously committed adultery but put his wife away either (a) before she had opportunity to divorce him, or (b) while she was attempting to reconcile. The other end would have no such restrictions, and say that anyone who was put away for reasons other than immorality could divorce their husband if he ever engaged in sexually deviant behavior.

The foundation of the argument made is the idea that a divorce is only legitimate if done for sexually deviant behavior, that if a divorce is for any other reason, it's not legitimate and therefore not really a divorce. Therefore, the two are still married "in God's eyes," and therefore if the divorcing man ever commits sexually deviant behavior, including entering a new marriage, the divorced (passive put-away party) woman can "put away" her husband and therefore marry another. Hence the "mental divorce": the second divorce is not a legal divorce, but a mental one.

The flaw in the argument, of course, is the idea that the purpose of the divorce establishes whether the divorce is really a divorce or not.

The Scriptures say the following:

"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
Matthew 5:32 ESV

"And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
Matthew 19:9 ESV

In both verses, the nature of the divorce is not specified. No comment is made regarding God's recognition of one but not the other. Essentially, in these passages, divorce is divorce. The purpose of the divorce establishes the consequences of the action: if for any reason but sexually deviant behavior, either party entering into another marriage commits adultery; if for the reason of sexually deviant behavior, the offending spouse commits adultery if they remarry, but not the offended spouse. The action-- divorce-- is the same.

Therefore, it is patently absurd to read the passage as if Jesus is saying that only divorce for sexually deviant behavior is really a divorce. No such claim is made nor can such a claim be inferred. In fact, the "mental divorce" position would turn the exception into the rule, and is therefore contrary to the text.

The text is clear and easy to understand. There are two parties in any divorce: the active, putting away spouse, and the passive, put away spouse. Once these roles have been established, they cannot be reversed. When the covenant has been broken, the covenant has been broken...and whoever is on the passive, receiving end of a divorce can never marry another (Matthew 5:32).

Now, I know that it will be argued that there has to be some marriage bond, otherwise how can Jesus say that marriage to another is "adultery"? It's a good question, but the Scriptures do answer in Matthew 5:32. It is said there that anyone who marries the passive, put-away woman, commits adultery. Now, if that woman has been divorced because she committed sexually deviant behavior, how can it be "adultery"? After all, the husband can go out and marry another, so the bond is manifestly dissolved!

There are some who would answer that conundrum by asserting that a woman being divorced for having committed sexually deviant behavior can remarry, yet by Matthew 5:32 that is untenable, since the exception clause of the first half of the verse does not extend to the second half. The answer has to be that even though the covenant has been broken and dissolved, the woman by her act of faithlessness and having separated what God joined together (Matthew 19:6), is still amenable to that covenant. Her act of marriage to another is precisely the meaning of adultery: she would be having sex with someone other than her husband, since she should have never been faithless with her husband and should still be in that union. The same is true for both parties in a divorce for reasons other than sexually deviant behavior: they are not loosed from their obligation merely because they have dissolved the covenant. By separating what God joined together, they have no right to join with another.

So...a long message, and I'm sure that many agree with it. It's also likely that there may be some who hold to the "mental divorce" position, and I would certainly love to discuss the matter with such ones. But now I must ask the question: what do we do with this elephant in the room?

I ask this because the truth on this matter is being assaulted from people held in high esteem, and the very ones who would condemn others for having association with others who would believe the "baptism washes away marriages" position are not condemning those who have difficulties associating with brethren holding and advocating the "mental divorce" position, and calling brethren who hold the truth on the matter divisive, Pharisaical, and the whole litany of rhetorical flairs intended to isolate and humiliate those of us who will stand for the truth on this matter.

This matter causes me great grief, for many men whom I hold in great esteem would advocate some form of "mental divorce." What is more alarming is that since those who know the truth about marriage, divorce, and remarriage seem to in general steer clear of any form of disassociation action, this belief is poisoning congregations and causing great divisiveness in the brotherhood. With the truth not being advocated, this error will flourish-- and it has.

Brethren, I know that we're sick of dealing with the pain of divisions and having to have no association with people we otherwise love and agree with. But merely because we're tired of divisions over the work of the church and other matters does not mean that we should swallow this camel with far more serious consequences. Let's face it: mental divorce advocates are giving license to people to engage in adultery. If the Scripture says that anyone who marries a woman having been put away commits adultery, and such people say that the woman having been put away for reasons other than sexually deviant behavior can remarry and be pleasing to God, it's time to disassociate from those brethren and continue to hold to the truth. Romans 14 can keep us together in matters of liberty, but adultery is certainly a matter of the righteousness of the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17) and cannot be compromised.

After all, if we will not worship with and work with those with whom we disagree on giving benevolence to non-saints, or the use of an instrument in worship, how much more so for those with whom we disagree about whether a divorced person is legitimately remarried or committing adultery?

As it is written,

A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
Galatians 5:9 ESV

Brethren, if we act as if we don't see this elephant in the room, it's not going to go away. It's going to get bigger and it's going to crowd out the truth. It's time to stand up before it's too late.

ELDV

XIII: Media Coverage of Religious Matters

07 November 2005 Common Era

While I personally believe that the media many times gets overbashed, and "media bias" many times becomes a ploy to evade potentially significant matters requiring discussion, media coverage of anything Christianity tends to be rather bothersome to me.

For instance, the article attached to this picture:




Now, the find itself is a great find, and it might (key word: might) set the clock back earlier on when church buildings began to be built.

Now, what bothers me about the coverage of the event:

1. The sacrifice of due process and integrity for sensational marketing and audience.

This has been going on for about the past ten or so years in archaeology, especially in the areas of Biblical and Egyptian archaeology. Many times either reputable scholars will go out on a limb to gain press, despite knowing that what they're doing is essentially sensationalistic (i.e., Bob Brier, who does great work with mummies, making a show about the "murder of Tutankhamun" based on flimsy evidence overturned by recent CT scans), or some discovery will be overblown and claims made that are generally very sensationalist with little ground in substance (i.e., Shimon Gibson, with his "cave of John the Baptist," which may very well be a significant miqva of the first century that some later tradition ascribed to him, but such is not proof in the least).

This article seems to promote the latter: archaeological dating, especially on such a recent discovery, is notoriously open-ended; while it is certainly possible for the church to date toward the middle to end of the third century (ca. 250-300), it could also later be shown to be 40 years later. While one scholar is quoted with an opposing view, the article would make it seem certain that the church does date from before 300. Why? Because it would make the discovery new, exciting, and overturning tradition.

In the end, the church might truly date from that period and history as we know it will have to be re-written. But let such be proven first and then announced, as opposed to being announced and then proven. We all know where that can lead (the James Ossuary, the Jehoash inscription, etc.).

2. What bothers me even more is summarized in the following quotation from the article:

"The church's location, not far from the spot where the New Testament says the final battle between good and evil will take place, also made sense because a bishop was active in the area at the time, said Tepper, who works with the Israel Antiquities Authority."

In other coverage of the event, the place where the church was found was described as "Armageddon," with little if any mention of Megiddo.

Here again Biblical truth-- at least, proper understanding of it-- gets trumped by sensationalism. The place name Megiddo is not going to mean much to the average person and is rather unsexy; Armageddon, of course, evokes Revelation 16:16:

And they gathered them together into the place which is called in Hebrew Armageddon.

Yes, the term "Armageddon" is better known to people, but I would hazard that (a) most people could not tell you where it is located, and furthermore, (b) would probably think it referred to the battle and not the place.

"Armageddon," by the way, is the Graecized form of the Hebrew Har Megiddo, "Mount of Megiddo," although it is generally believed that the battle would take place in the expansive valley of Megiddo, near the city. The place does have the distinction of having had more battles fought upon it than anywhere else in the world, since it was a major commercial route.

Now, the substance of my problem: while the New Testament records the vision of John in the Apocalypse that a great battle takes place on (or near) Har Megiddo, it's precisely that: a vision. Yes, premillennialists interpret it literally as if the forces of good and evil will duke it out in the valley of Megiddo, but certainly the media knows better-- such is not the only way the book is viewed.

Not only that, of course, but the text says only that the evil ones assemble at Har Megiddo; the text then describes a great earthquake and the splitting of Babylon into three parts (Revelation 16:17-19). The text does not seem to indicate that any battle in any sense of the term was fought.

Now, I don't really expect the media to present the truth of the Word of God; that's our job as Christians. It does, however, irritate me that in a story that people will most probably soak up as fact, it is said that the New Testament teaches that there will be a final battle between good and evil at Armageddon.

I find the verse before all of this, Revelation 16:15, to be an interesting parenthetical note:

(Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walked naked, and they see his shame.)

It strikes me how this message is precisely the same as what we can see throughout the New Testament in terms of the end of time:

"Therefore be ye also ready; for in an hour that ye think not the Son of man cometh. Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over his household, to give them their food in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing."
Matthew 24:44-46

"Watch therefore, for ye know not the day nor the hour."
Matthew 25:13

But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that aught be written unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. When they are saying, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall in no wise escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
1 Thessalonians 5:1-4

Seeing that these things are thus all to be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy living and godliness, looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
2 Peter 3:11-12

In the midst of all the visions and signs so often misinterpreted and misdirected, the substance of what we need to know is made manifest: the Lord is coming. You don't know when. Be prepared. Be holy in conduct. Wait for and hasten the day of the Lord, for it will in truth come when it is not expected.

Know for a certainty that while John saw in a vision the evil beasts gathering at Har Megiddo, we ought not expect to see that vision fulfilled literally. If we are to expect to see a future progression of events that parallels the visions in the Revelation, be assured that we will understand that not in the process, but after it is all over and we have time to reflect on such matters with the Father and the Son. Regardless, we can see that God is continually striving against the forces of evil, as must we, and the Lord is going to return at a time which is unknown to us and not expected by many. Let us not be deceived into complacency, believing that we will see the signs of Revelation fulfilled before our eyes in a way that all will see clearly, for such is a misguided hope, and when the Lord does return there is no second chance. The end comes, and it will assuredly, finally, be too late to return to God.

As it is written,

He who testifieth these things saith, Yea: I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with the saints. Amen.
Revelation 22:20-21

ELDV