Untitled Document

Below is the rest of the entire exchange between Steven J. Wallace and Jeff Belknap....

From: Jeff Belknap [mailto:jeffbelknap@mchsi.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 11:26 AM
To: Steven J. Wallace
Cc: 'JOhn Smith'; 'David Watts Jr.'; 'Connie W. Adams'; 'J. T. Smith'; 'Ron Halbrook'; 'Donnie Rader'; 'Greg Gwin'; 'Tim Haile'
Subject: Re: Your second list of questions

Belknap’s Questions With Wallace’s Answers & Wallace’s Questions With Belknap’s Answers

Belknap Questions & Wallace Answers

Belknap’s Question # 1) Do you believe that it is possible for one spouse to wrongfully put away their mate (against the innocent mate's will) and it be considered a divorce in the “eyes of God,” – or are they still Biblically “married”?

Wallace’s Answer To Question # 1) Yes, I believe it is possible for a spouse to wrongfully put away their mate. It happens all the time. Where fornication is not a part of the original equation, then remarriage can never be done for either party at least as long as both shall live.

Steve, this is not what Ron Halbrook has publicly taught. Ron stated that after a wrongful divorce the couple are still married. This does not appear to be a difference in application to me, but rather a difference in doctrine. Please note Ron’s own words:

“And so, in conclusion from this, we learn that an unscriptural divorce releases neither party from marriage. When you have an unscriptural divorce, as men count it, it’s not so with God.” Ron Halbrook (MDR sermon preached in Wilkesville, OH; 6-14-90)

Moreover, in Ron’s charts http://www.truthmagazine.com/powerpoint/BALANCE-MaintainingTimesControversy-11-22-03.ppt on “Maintaining Balance” [last point at the bottom of chart (# 26)], he has publicly taught that it is not necessary for fornication to be part of “the original equation” for one to eventually employ a post-divorce “putting away” in order to remarry another while the first partner lives. In the aforementioned chart, Ron intimates that one is out of “balance” when he teaches “If Prospective Fornicator Gets Divorce Paper & Then Commits Adultery, Faithful Mate Not Remarry”

Such like quotes from brother Ron (and associates) are legion. I continue to marvel that you and several others who are closely associated with Ron take no issue over this teaching, even while expressing disagreement with it. From all I have seen, you have only praise for brother Halbrook and have charged me with erroneously portraying him as a false teacher.

You further put in writing:

While God may recognize such wrong divorces, that doesn’t mean he “approves” of such. By implication, Herodias divorced or divorced Philip. a) Philip may have been innocent of fornication and would therefore have been permitted to remarry if such were true. b) Herodias was guilty of adultery and was not permitted to be married. c) Herod was in fornication and was not permitted to be married to her (Mk. 6:17ff). It is equally possible for one to be married in the (eyes of God) and yet for it to be without approval.

“For Herod himself had sent and laid hold of John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife; for he had married her” (Mk. 6:17).

Interestingly, Herodias is still called Philip’s “wife” while at the same time being “married” to Herod, viz. “he (Herod) had married her.” Likewise, I am curious, if you take your same approach with divorce that to the subject of marriage? Say for example, that Herod had never been married before Herodias. Would you then also bar him from ever marrying scripturally because he had married one who was incidentally unlawful to marry. Please cite the scripture(s) that authorizes such in either case.

Steve, you agree that a wrongful divorce is indeed a real divorce “in God’s eyes,” but then you advocate that put away individuals can also “put away” their bound mates who fornicate after the fact (such as Philip above), in order to remarry another while their original man/woman still lives. This seems to disagree with your answer to my first question when you wrote, “Where fornication is not a part of the original equation, then remarriage can never be done for either party at least as long as both shall live.”

Unfortunately, there is absolutely NO scripture for putting away after having been put away and your neglect to provide any scripture which would defend such a premise (within all of your “answers”) only underscores that fact.

The Terms “Husband” And “Wife”

Just because the terms “husband” and “wife” are used after the fact of an unapproved divorce does not constitute proof that the innocent person who “is put away” has authority to divorce their divinely obligated man /woman for post-divorce fornication. You need a very active imagination which does not mind ignoring one half of what Jesus taught on divorce and remarriage to conclude all of that (i.e. the “b” parts of Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18).

Although the Greek words “aner” (man) and “gune” (woman) are sometimes translated as “husband” and “wife,” these words literally mean “man” and “woman” [i.e. the “man” whom God obligated to a certain woman, and the “woman” whom God joined to a certain man when they were lawfully married]. These exact same Greek words are also used to refer to one’s DEAD SPOUSE as well (Matthew 22:24-25, Acts 5:9; Romans 7:3, I Corinthians 7:11; 39; Cp. w. II Samuel 11:26; 12:9-10, 15).

When Jesus spoke of “her which is put away from her husband” (Luke 16:18), the Lord acknowledged that although the marriage was sundered, she was still bound to her man. Hence, any subsequent marriage to another (by either party) equals adultery (Romans 7:2-3; I Corinthians 7:39), even though it appears that her man wrongfully put her away and remarried first.

I Corinthians 7:2 states, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” We are to only “have” our “own” man/woman, not somebody else’s. But in I Corinthians 5:1, we learn that a son was having his father’s wife (i.e. woman).

Regarding the scenario question you were curious about, if Herod had never been married prior to Herodias, he never had his “own wife” (as per I Corinthians 7:2) – he only had his brother’s wife (woman). Hence, he was still “loosed” (or free, not “bound” to anyone). His marriage with the woman whom God had joined to his brother was adulterous. Thus, “to avoid fornication” he would be required to first divorce his adulterous partner, before he could lawfully marry an eligible mate. (Note that Matthew 5; 19; Mark 10 and Luke 16 pronounced subsequent marriages as adulterous, in the context of after the wrongful break-up of God-joined marriages, cf. Matthew 19:3, 6-9; Mark 10:7-9).

Belknap’s Question # 2) If you say they are still “married,” how do you reconcile your understanding to the Bible’s reference to such innocent persons as, “put away,” “divorced,” and “unmarried” - Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Lk. 16:18 and I Cor. 7:10-11?

Wallace’s Answer To Question # 2 – I am not saying they are still married, yet they are still considered one’s husband/wife. Herodias was “unmarried” to Philip, but was still considered Philip’s wife. How so? Because God “bound” them together. Men manage marriage; God controls the bond. Observe carefully:

“But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife” (1 cor. 7:11).

She does depart
Results in being “UNMARRIED”
Yet may still be reconciled to “HER HUSBAND.”

There you have a woman divorced, no longer married, thus “unmarried” and yet still has a husband. How so? Because God bound them together! It is really so simple.

I agree with your comments here for the most part, but I believe that you do not fully comprehend the Greek word “aner” translated “husband” (I Corinthians 7:11). I believe the intent of the translators in using the word “husband” instead of “man” (the literal translation) was to help the reader make the right connection. Yes, he is still her “man” by divine obligation, but because the word “husband” is used, some deny that the marriage is absolutely and altogether sundered (chorizo, cf. Matthew 19:6). Yet, in verse 10, we learn that prior to the departure they were “gameo” (married), then, after the divorce they were “agamos” (unmarried) in verse 11. They both are now unmarried and/or divorced!

At this point (after Philip had been wrongfully divorced by his original wife, as you acknowledged), he would be the person Jesus addressed in the second parts of Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18. As such, he would be prohibited from lawful marriage to another as long as his bound wife lives. However, just like I Corinthians 7:11 teaches, he would be authorized to reconcile with his own woman. No scripture authorizes divorced people to “put away” their bound man/woman for their obligated man’s/woman’s post-divorce fornication.

When the Lord addressed those who “put away” (or repudiate), their divinely bound man/woman, he was addressing those who sunder their “one flesh” (marriage) relationship (Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3, 6, 9; cf. I Corinthians 7:10-11)! This cannot be done again (without reconciliation), after a divorce has been completed.

To advocate that this can be done after a divorce has taken place, is to pervert God’s word by taking the Lord’s teaching out of context.

Belknap’s Question # 3) If you say they are divorced (though still bound), please cite the scripture(s) that authorizes one who is what the Bible calls “divorced” or “put away” and “unmarried” to divorce their mate for the cause of fornication when it is committed after they have become divorced?

Wallace’s Answer To Question # 3 – I explained that in question 2. They may be “departed” or “sent away” and yet still have a “husband/wife.” That doesn’t negate the vow-abiding spouse’s right to remarry again because it was the fornication of the other which led to the divorce in the first place.

Steve, your answer to my question # 2 does not attempt to answer this question and provides no scripture whatsoever that authorizes one who is “divorced” or “put away” or “unmarried” to divorce their mate for post-divorce fornication. In fact, the one scripture you actually cited authorizes the direct opposite of post-divorce “putting away” for post-divorce fornication – your cited verse proves that reconciliation with one’s bound mate is the only Biblical marriage option for those who are wrongfully put away. This is exactly my point, and I thank you for proving it!

We have both acknowledged that God recognizes an innocent person as wrongfully put away, even against their will. Hence, the generic terms “apoluo,” “chorizo,” and “apheimi” describe both lawful and unlawful divorces. However, where we go our different ways is when you affirm the remarriage-ability of those who have been “put away” - yet in the divorce that put them away, they were not the one in the “a” portions of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 who put away their mate for the cause of fornication, but were in fact, the one who was put away in the “b” portions of those verses and Luke 16:18. Please note that Jesus only gave the exception clause to those who put away their one-flesh marriage partner for the cause of fornication! Steve, this is a very important detail that you seem to be neglecting. I care about the souls that I believe will be lost due to your teaching that results in the sin of adultery, and this is why God requires me to oppose it (Ephesians 5:11; Jude 3-4; II John 9-11).

In your last letter you stated, “I have never met Connie Adams, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. He showed me by his example that there are areas of application that we can disagree on and yet maintain fellowship. His example with Weldon Warnock have helped me see that two men can disagree (like Paul and Barnabas) and yet lift up each others’ hands.” However, brother Adams has clearly and publicly stated his belief that the doctrine which you and Weldon teach leads to adultery (Spiritual Death, Galatians 5:19-21) – and yet you think it is exemplary that he can “lift up” Weldon’s “hands” (cf. Jeremiah 23:14; Ezekiel 13:22)?! We are frequently warned about using the wrong examples in judgment (II Corinthians 10:12; III John 11), and against the respect of persons (Romans 2:11; Acts 10:34-35; I Timothy 5:20-21). I would venture to say that you did not have the same “respect” for those who lifted up brother Hailey’s hands when they understood him to be advocating adultery (Romans 2:1-2, 21-22) in the exact same way that brother Adams is lifting up the hands of those teach this doctrine which he deems as adulterous.

Jesus gave the exception clause to those who were divinely OBLIGATED and MARRIED, NOT just divinely OBLIGATED. No scripture authorizes one whom Jesus describes as having been “put away” from their obligated mate to subsequently put away, whether they are still called “husband”/“wife” or not. Contrariwise, the only scriptures that address those who have been (rightfully or wrongly) put away from a lawful one-flesh marriage relationship are the second parts of Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18. They all specifically state that remarriage to another is unequivocally ADULTERY (with the understood implication that their original man/woman is still alive, Romans 7:2-3; I Corinthians 7:39).

Belknap’s Question # 4) When Jesus addressed those who put away and mentioned the Jews’ national procedure of putting away with giving “a writing of divorcement” (cf. Deuteronomy 24:1), He revealed the exception clause (Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-9). Within this context, was he addressing those who sunder the “one flesh” (marriage) relationship or was He also including an action that was accomplished after the marriage was already sundered?

Wallace’s Answer To Question # 4 – by “national procedure” I don’t know what you mean. It was to be recognized throughout the land, but neither the national government, nor the state, nor the local government took part in those divorces. It was always the husband alone who wrote the certificate of divorce. Moses gave commands for individuals and for tribes and for the nation at large. Similarly, “pure and undefiled religion before God” of visiting widows and orphans in their time of need is not a “national procedure” but an individual one (Jas. 1:27). It is a law that all Christians are to submit to but is only carried out by individuals. Further, Jesus revealed the exception clause in the context of punishing the widespread liberal school of thought justifying trivial divorce or divorce for “any cause” (Mat. 19:3). If one ignores or perverts the meaning in that passage, then some erroneous conclusions may be promoted.

Not only is the context of punishing the popular and liberal school of thought that a man could divorce his wife for “any reason” as long as he gave her a certificate of divorce, it discusses separating what God Himself had joined together. Jesus outlined reasons why He hated their liberal thoughts on divorce. 1) Mankind was created “male and female” (v. 4). 2) Man was to leave mother and father, not wife (v. 5). Man was to be joined to his wife (v. 5), not separate. Man was to become one flesh with his wife (conjugal relationship) and not separate (v. 5). Note: man was to leave, then join (marry) then become one flesh with their wife. None of those three particulars inherently required civil procedure when they were done. What government existed when Adam married Eve. . .when Cain took a wife. . .when Seth married. . .etc. There was none but God alone. Yet, they were joined together by law (God’s) nonetheless. Where governments of today place regulations and such on marriage, they are to be obeyed UNLESS they violate scripture. The “Joining” in verse 5 is being glued and stuck together (also found here: Acts 5:36; Eph. 5:31). God then “binds” them (v. 6, translated “joins”). They are bound together. A man is bound to his wife. Can a man divorce his wife and still be “bound.” Yes as I have showed in the previous email with Herod and 1 Corinthians 7.

Directly now: Jesus is discussing the separation of two by divorce. The marriage is sundered not by divorce lawyers and courtrooms, but when the husband chose to send his wife out. Please show me where those under Deuteronomy 24 and the context of Matthew 19 sent their wives away with lawyers/courtrooms/judges being inherent to the practice?

Steve, for all the words you used, you never answered my question. I asked: “Within this context, was He addressing those who sunder the “one flesh” (marriage) relationship or was He also including an action that was accomplished after the marriage was already sundered?” It could easily have been answered in one sentence, yet in three long paragraphs, you never once addressed it. Moreover, after sidestepping my question, you unbelievably asked another question of me. Questions are not answers! (I hope that all who are reading this exchange will “hear” exactly what brother Wallace’s silence to my actual questions is saying, loud and clear.)

By the Jews’ ‘national procedure’ of putting away, I am referring to the law of Moses which was a system of theocracy. According to Random House Unabridged Dictionary, “theocracy” means: “1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities. 2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission. 3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.”

Because God was “the supreme civil ruler,” He had the power to dictate HOW a divorce was accomplished! You’re right, “neither the national government, nor the state, nor the local government took part in those divorces. It was always the husband alone who wrote the certificate of divorce.” Yet, the reason why a divorce was done exactly this way was because this was the God-ordained “national procedure” of putting away for the Jews. All this discussion revolving around “civil” protocol reminds me of the hand gun controversy. In an attempt to outlaw gun ownership by civilians, liberals try to con us into thinking that hand guns are killers when in reality, guns are only “tools” that people use to commit murder.

Furthermore, I would have to disagree with your emphasis that “Jesus revealed the exception clause in the context of punishing the widespread liberal school of thought justifying trivial divorce or divorce for ‘any cause’ (Mat. 19:3).” This may have been part of the Lord’s intent, but from verse 4 to “the exception clause” revealed in verse 9, Jesus bypassed the teaching of the rabbis to what God said (was written) “at the beginning.” We do not know exactly what the Pharisees had in mind when they were “tempting him” (verse 3, cf. I Corinthians 2:11). However what we do know, is that Jesus was teaching the will of God on MDR and we cannot dismiss the importance of part of what He said (the “b” portions of the aforementioned MDR verses) because it does not “jive” with our suppositions about why He said it.

Moreover, when Adam and Eve married, as well as Cain, Seth, etc., etc; they all married according to the recognized practice of that day and time. (God obviously taught the patriarchs about marriage, for they did not come up with the idea themselves.) Different dispensations have different authorities to obey (i.e. systems of theocracy, monarchy and/or democracy).

Belknap’s Question # 5) Would you please provide a book, chapter and verse which reveals a biblical pattern for someone to “put away” their divinely-obligated man/woman after their one flesh (marriage) relationship had already been sundered?

Wallace’s Answer To Question # 5: Please show me the pattern of methods/protocol from the scriptures that those original recipients of Jesus’ teaching were to do to divorce their mate. Please give the detailed pattern for divorce protocol. Recall where there is no pattern established, we cannot bind a certain procedure. Where do the papers, lawyers and courtrooms come into play according to the scriptures? For more information pertaining to your question of divorce and covenant breaking click here: http://www.sunnysidechurchofchrist.com/id25.html and note that some have actually taken your doctrine to a level that I am sure you would never go—placing the spouse under conjugal submission to the fornicating spouse until the civil procedure of courtrooms, judges, papers, lawyers was complete. In actuality, his fornication automatically releases her from such a duty.

Again, note the obvious absence of scripture from your “answer,” which was not an answer, but a question of me. The question never mentioned “methods/protocol” and the answer obviously did not hinge on our agreement of “methods/protocol.” There is obviously a basic biblical pattern for someone to ‘put away’ their divinely-obligated man/woman (i.e. first they must be married, then they get a divorce which is authorized or not.) Regardless of what the “methods/protocols” for marriage and divorce were and are, once one has been wrongfully put away (as you acknowledge they can be), where is the “book, chapter and verse which reveals a biblical pattern for someone to ‘put away’ their divinely-obligated man/woman after their one flesh (marriage) relationship had already been sundered?” This is not hard – all I asked for was just one verse that authorizes it (via statement of fact, command, approved example or necessary inference), and your inability to provide one has again manifested itself loud and clear! You provided no scripture because there is none. This conspicuous absence again only serves to reinforce my contention that there is no scriptural authority for post-divorce “putting away.”

II Timothy 1:13, “Hold fast the form (‘THE PATTERN,’ NKJV, ASV, RSV) of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.”

Where there is no pattern, Steven, there is NO authority. God has commanded us to obey His ministers regarding social protocol. For Paul wrote, “Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation” (Romans 13:2).

Belknap’s Question # 6) Since you believe that the Bible actually authorizes “putting away” for fornication after the first (wrongful divorce), then why discuss civil procedure, when you could immediately settle this entire controversy by revealing the scripture which teaches post-divorce “putting away”?

Wallace’s Answer To Question # 6: I don’t know that I do advocate that such is important. All I maintain is that while the civil divorce may be initiated and fueled by the fornicator, that such doesn’t negate the right for the innocent one to remarry. Like the “certificate” of the Old Testament, the civil procedure of today only verifies/certifies what actually went on. When you find people in the church who are divorce and remarried, do you inquire “why” they divorced and remarried or “how” they divorced and remarried?

Steven, you have again side-stepped my question. I didn’t ask whether or not you believe discussing the civil procedure is important. I already know what you “maintain.” Moreover, I did not request that you ask me another question. All I asked is that you reveal the scripture that authorizes what you “maintain” (to settle this issue) – that a putting away after one is put away is recognized in scripture. Again, it is a very simple question which you will not and cannot answer.

Steven, just think: I would shut down my website for good and apologize to those whose doctrines I have exposed (and I know you would love to see that happen) if you would only share with me one verse which commands, gives an approved example, states a fact or necessarily implies an approved “putting away” and lawful marriage to another for one who has already been put away while their God-joined mate lives. Yet, the absence of scripture from your “answers” is deafening.

I beg you to please take the emotionalism out of your answer above and please let the fact that you have NO AUTHORITY to give for post-divorce “putting away” sink in, and then do something about it (Matthew 3:8).

Wallace’s Questions & Belknap’s Answers

Wallace’s Question # 1) Does the teaching of Jesus on “putting away” apply to all nations and all cultures? 1a) If “yes,” does it mandate that there must be civil procedures in every case?

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 1) When teaching on “putting away,” Jesus applied it to “whosoever” (cf. Matthew 4:23; I Corinthians 7:10; 14:37).

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 1a) Putting away/asunder is WHAT someone does to their marriage partner. HOW it is accomplished (tool or agency) is an entirely different subject. For example: Romans 7:4 tells us that we are “married” to Christ. The procedure to accomplish the “ceremony” is a different issue altogether (Ephesians 5:25-26, 30-32; Galatians 3:27-28).

Although I have never argued that a divorce must be accomplished in a “court house,” “all nations and all cultures” are unequivocally commanded to submit to their civil authorities (Romans 13:1-5; I Peter 2:13-17; Titus 3:1)! Therefore, if a society recognizes broom-jumping as the accepted protocol by which one becomes married, and backward broom-jumping as the procedure by which one becomes divorced, then when one employs those culturally-recognized and accepted “procedures” with the intent to marry or divorce, they are married or divorced (right or wrong)!

You will notice that Jesus inferred compliance to socially accepted “procedures” regarding marriage and divorce when he spoke of relatives as being “in law”(s):

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law (# 3565, numphe) against her mother in law (# 3994, penthera). 36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” Cf. Mt. 8:14; 10:35; Mk. 1:30; Lk. 4:38; 12:53; Jn. 3:29; 18:13; Rev. 18:23; 21:2, 9; 22:17

Steven, you are not advocating that we all become “out-laws,” are you? An “out law” is defined as:

“One excluded from the benefits and protection of the law; one under sentence of outlawry; hence, a disorderly person living in defiant violation of the law; a habitual criminal; also, an untamed or untamable horse or other animal.—To deprive of the benefits and protection of the law, as a person; proscribe; also, to remove from legal jurisdiction, or deprive of legal force. – out’law-ry, The act or process of outlawing, or the state of being outlawed; also, disregard or defiance of the law.” The New Century Dictionary, Vol. 1, p. 1209

Note the teaching in II Corinthians 8:21, “Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.” Post-divorce “putting away” is neither recognized nor approved of by any scripture (in the sight of the Lord), as is evident from the conspicuous absence of scripture to prove your assertions. Neither is it recognized/acknowledged in the sight of men. Yet the Lord commands honesty in the sight of both God and man. Cf. Romans 12:17b

Wallace’s Question # 2) Does the teaching of Jesus on “putting” away apply to civilizations where “divorce” is not recognized by the government? Wally Little says “no.” I say “yes.” What do you say?

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 2) When brethren start asking “what if” questions using the most extreme and emotionally-charged scenarios, it does nothing to clarify scriptural teaching, but obscures it! If they wanted scriptural clarification, they would go to scripture and not scenarios that invariably involve someone who is suffering due to another’s actions.

We are commanded to respect and obey the civil authorities, for God has placed them in power to rule over us (Romans 13:1-5; I Peter 2:13-17; Titus 3:1), and to disobey them is to disobey God. According to scripture, the accepted practice of each civilization should be the standard regarding social protocol, whatever it may be. (There is never an instance of marriage or divorce recorded in the Bible which was not a matter of public record and acknowledgement among the people of that civilization.)

Did not such a person who married in such circumstances KNOW the consequences (i.e. that “divorce” is not recognized” in that country’s government)? Should one not count the cost in such circumstances? Steven, my heart cries out for those who suffer unjustly, but Jesus taught that unfortunate circumstances may cause some to make “themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (Matthew 19:12)! In other words, sometimes obedience to God’s law necessitates suffering wrong (I Peter 3:14, 17; 4:19). Why not trust in the providence of God instead of human wisdom (Matthew 6:8; cf. II Corinthians 12:9-10; Philippians 4:13)?

Jesus’ teaching regarding the liberty (not command) to eat all meats was rescinded (in certain circumstances) by commands outlined in I Corinthians 8:9-13; 10:27-33. Paul even stated, “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” Likewise, one cannot violate God’s command to obey the civil authorities (Romans 13:1-5; I Peter 2:13-17; Titus 3:1) who prohibit divorce in that country (if that is the case), in order to avail himself of a God-given liberty (not requirement) to put away a one-flesh marriage partner for fornication.

There may be circumstances in which it is impossible to keep man’s civil laws without violating God’s. In this instance, we must OBEY God rather than men. But there is a difference between obedience to a command and availing oneself of a liberty, when it would necessitate violation of a command.

Wallace’s Question # 3) Did Isaac need a legal certificate to marry Rebekah (in the eyes of God). 3a) If “YES” please cite the scripture 3b) If “NO” were you the one who added “(However you get married in a culture; requires that civil action to obtain a divorce.)” in Morris’ response? 3c) If “NO” do you also accept that a legal procedure is not inherent to divorce?

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 3) Isaac simply followed the socially-recognized procedure of his day. Hence, all in that society recognized him as being wedded at the time of their marriage. However, procedures sometimes change with dispensations. Deuteronomy 24 changed the socially-recognized procedure of divorcement for the Jews after the Mosaic decree was written.

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 3b) I did not write anything to you prior to the questions I asked you.

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 3c) Please see my answer to your question # 5.

Wallace’s Question # 4) Do you forbid a woman (vow-abiding) whose fornicating, marital-bed desecrating, husband first sprang divorce papers upon her the right to remarry? If no, how do you reconcile passages like Matthew 19:9?

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 4) I have no power of my own authority to “forbid” anything any more than you have power of your own to “allow” anything (regarding religious practices). Moreover, I have never taught that one must be the “first” to file for divorce. (If you had only read a small portion of my material over the last seven years you would know that.) There is a difference in filing for divorce and the divorce itself (case in point: one may file for divorce, then have a change of heart and decide to remain married).

However, if the “vow-abiding” womandoes not exercise the authorized action to put away her man for fornication prior to becoming put away herself, then she is the one whom Jesus described as “put away from her husband,” (Lk. 16:18; cf. Matthew 19:9) and as such, it is Jesus who “forbids” her marriage to another. I am simply reiterating His instruction regarding those who are put away.

Wallace’s Question # 5) Is civil protocol an absolute necessary part in establishing the meaning of “apoluo.”

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 5) Obviously the words “apoluo,” “chorizo” and “aphiemi” (all used in the context of divorce) are generic. Regarding divorce, they would include lawful (approved) as well as unlawful (unapproved) actions toward one’s marriage partner. Moreover, they would include whatever procedure is socially-accepted in any culture in which it was employed (for instance, backward broom-jumping). [Remember: there must be honesty in the sight of all men as well as God, II Corinthians 8:21.] Hence, once a spouse employs that socially-recognized procedure (regardless of whether right or wrong), then one has put away his/her mate, and the other becomes the put away person (as described in the 2^nd parts of Matthew 5:32; 19:9 and Luke 16:18). After a wrongful divorce, the two remain bound (divinely obligated) to each other – though not married.

Wallace’s Question # 6) Does Jesus bind a certificate of divorce today? If yes, please cite the scripture?

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 6) It seems a recurrent theme among your questions that you are trying to get around the finality of our socially-recognized and accepted procedure of divorce in this culture. However, if our own socially-recognized procedure for marriage was broom-jumping, and backward broom-jumping for divorce, would you acknowledge that the innocent, “vow-abiding” woman whose “marital bed-desecrating” husband divorced her (by jumping over the broom backwards) is now the one “which is put away from her husband” and thus becomes an adulteress when she marries another (as per Luke 16:18)? Or would you be asking me, “Does Jesus bind backward broom-jumping for divorce today? If yes, please cite the scripture?”

Thus, the discussion over “procedure” is not relevant. What is relevant is: A) whether or not you acknowledge that one who is wrongfully divorced is nonetheless divorced in God’s eyes, even while still obligated to the man or woman that God joined him/her to (and you have told me that you do), and consequently, B) whether or not you accept Jesus’ teaching regarding the one who is divorced from their God-joined mate, as per Matthew 5:32b; 19:9b; Luke 16:18b; cf. Romans 7:2-3 (obviously not).

Contending that a wrongfully put away person can subsequently “put away” the one who has already put them away is a concept that is totally foreign to the scriptures! You, yourself did not even attempt to prove that it was authorized when you responded to my own question # 6.

If “a certificate of divorce” is a necessary component of the socially-accepted and recognized procedure of our culture (just like driving, fishing/hunting and other licenses are required), then we must fulfill the requirements of God’s word to be in compliance to HIS divinely appointed civil authorities (powers that be).

I could just as easily ask you to “please cite the scripture” for the requirement to have a driving license to drive, or a fishing/hunting license to fish or hunt. What about a license to practice medicine? The SAME scriptures which require compliance with the civil mandates to obtain any of those other civil licenses for participation in those things, require civil licenses for marriage/divorce as well. If you were to be consistent in your reasoning, then you would have to deny the need for ALL such required licenses.

We are warned in scripture about those who would “resist” and “despise” the powers/authorities that be (Romans 13:2; II Peter 2:10; Jude 8).

Wallace’s Question # 7) While I am asking questions, I will throw this one in there perhaps for my own future-personal use. Does God hate each and every single divorce? Please give references?

Belknap’s Answer To Question # 7) God does not hate every divorce. God hates wrongfuldivorces, such as when one is “dealing treacherously” with their divinely obligated spouse as per Malachi 2:14-16. Although He is not pleased when a lawful divorce transpires, it is only because the sin of fornication has caused the break-up of a lawful marriage. Moreover, God is in fact well-pleased with the divorces of those who are involved in adulterous marriages, as evidence of fruits worthy of repentance.

----- Original Message -----

From: Steven J. Wallace

To: 'Jeff Belknap'

Cc: 'Tim Haile' ; 'Greg Gwin' ; 'Donnie Rader' ; 'Ron Halbrook' ; 'J. T. Smith' ; 'Connie W. Adams' ; 'David Watts Jr.' ; 'JOhn Smith'

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 1:32 PM

Subject: Your second list of questions

Hello Jeff:

Since brother Bowers started this list and then pulled out, so to speak by asking me not to respond to him in another email, I am taking his name off my response as well as stating that this will be my final answer. The number of questions are “even” as you say. I have answered your questions and will await yours. I am sure that you are busy looking for a new congregation and I am busy working at two churches. Off the subject, did you use to preach in Rapid City? I was thinking you did, but am not for sure.

Likewise, I think these discussion profit little, since every man on this list, to my knowledge believes in only one cause for remarriage—that is divorce for fornication. We only differ because some think that the permitted right of an innocent one may be superseded by the speed of the guilty one to file and complete a civil divorce. Others say it is not because divorce does not inherently require civil procedure/protocol. To maintain an entire website over this particular issue seems very factious to me, I confess. I do not say that as a bully or by any wicked intention, but honestly that is how I see it. I wish that we, everyone on this list could reconcile and join hands, work shoulder to shoulder and begin to heal these sores among us and in the precious bride of Christ. These spots will not be accept when Jesus comes again. Whatever fueled this division among us is not right. Moderation on all of our parts (MINE included) would better serve the purpose of Christ.

I respect Donnie Rader for the work he has done. He has written tremendously valuable things particularly on first-principles. While I have never met him, I have benefited from his work as countless others have too. I have never met Connie Adams, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. He showed me by his example that there are areas of application that we can disagree on and yet maintain fellowship. His example with Weldon Warnock have helped me see that two men can disagree (like Paul and Barnabas) and yet lift up each others’ hands. That’s not always an easy lesson to convey to a younger man (albeit not a spring chicken anymore, so recently stated my doctor). I don’t know John Smith. Greg Gwin has done tremendous work too. I appreciate his answering Shane Scott’s heresy of the day-age theory. I love Ron Halbrook as a brother because we have shared in debate work/gospel meeting work together and formed a bond. We have not always agreed on every branch of an issue. But I count him a faithful man and beloved brother. Tim Hail and I have shared several things in common too, but I suppose we also have differences. I have never had much dealing with JT. My only dealing with David Watts was over this issue of which he vehemently disagrees with me.

------------

Question 4 – by “national procedure” I don’t know what you mean. It was to be recognized throughout the land, but neither the national government, nor the state, nor the local government took part in those divorces. It was always the husband alone who wrote the certificate of divorce. Moses gave commands for individuals and for tribes and for the nation at large. Similarly, “pure and undefiled religion before God” of visiting widows and orphans in their time of need is not a “national procedure” but an individual one (Jas. 1:27). It is a law that all Christians are to submit to but is only carried out by individuals. Further, Jesus revealed the exception clause in the context of punishing the widespread liberal school of thought justifying trivial divorce or divorce for “any cause” (Mat. 19:3). If one ignores or perverts the meaning in that passage, then some erroneous conclusions may be promoted.

Question 5: Please show me the pattern of methods/protocol from the scriptures that those original recipients of Jesus’ teaching were to do to divorce their mate. Please give the detailed pattern for divorce protocol. Recall where there is no pattern established, we cannot bind a certain procedure. Where do the papers, lawyers and courtrooms come into play according to the scriptures? For more information pertaining to your question of divorce and covenant breaking click here: http://www.sunnysidechurchofchrist.com/id25.html and note that some have actually taken your doctrine to a level that I am sure you would never go—placing the spouse under conjugal submission to the fornicating spouse until the civil procedure of courtrooms, judges, papers, lawyers was complete. In actuality, his fornication automatically releases her from such a duty.

Question 6: I don’t know that I do advocate that such is important. All I maintain is that while the civil divorce may be initiated and fueled by the fornicator, that such doesn’t negate the right for the innocent one to remarry. Like the “certificate” of the Old Testament, the civil procedure of today only verifies/certifies what actually went on. When you find people in the church who are divorce and remarried, do you inquire “why” they divorced and remarried or “how” they divorced and remarried?

Jeff, when you answer my questions, then I will file them but don’t count on me necessarily responding. We have talked and what we preach is a matter of public record. Again, I wish the body of Christ could heal and we could place our crosshairs on those who compromise the true doctrine of remarriage.

Brotherly,

Steven J. Wallace

From: Jeff Belknap [mailto:jeffbelknap@mchsi.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 7:25 AM
To: Steven J. Wallace; 'Morris Bowers'
Cc: 'Tim Haile'; 'Greg Gwin'; 'Donnie Rader'; 'Ron Halbrook'; 'J. T. Smith'; 'Connie W. Adams'; 'David Watts Jr.'; 'JOhn Smith'
Subject: Re: Request from bro Jeff Belknap

Dear Steven,

Thank you for your response. I assure you, I’ll answer your questions as well, but since you had roughly three times as many questions for me (that cover a lot of ground, including all the b and c questions), it is taking me longer to respond. Therefore, while I’m working on answering your various questions, would you please answer just a few more for me in addition to my first three (along the same lines of thought)? Then, I would be willing to call it even.

Question # 4) When Jesus addressed those who put away and mentioned the Jews’ national procedure of putting away with giving “a writing of divorcement” (cf. Deuteronomy 24:1), He revealed the exception clause (Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-9). Within this context, was he addressing those who sunder the “one flesh” (marriage) relationship or was He also including an action that was accomplished after the marriage was already sundered?

Question # 5) Would you please provide a book, chapter and verse which reveals a biblical pattern for someone to “put away” their divinely-obligated man/woman after their one flesh (marriage) relationship had already been sundered?

Steven, most brethren who turn the post-divorce “putting away” discussion into a discussion about “civil procedure” are those who deny that the wrongful civil divorce really makes one divorced “in God’s eyes.” Then, they claim that such men as myself are guilty of respecting man’s law over God’s because I acknowledge something was done against God’s law. (Absurd, since scripture calls them, “put away,” “divorced” and “unmarried” as you have agreed.)

On the other hand, you have assured me that you acknowledge a wrongfully divorced person is really divorced “in God’s eyes.” However, your questions have diverted to a discussion on civil law. Although I am working on answering your questions, I don’t understand the relevancy of these questions, when you acknowledge (as I do) that God views those who are wrongfully divorced as really divorced.

Therefore: Question # 6) Since you believe that the Bible actually authorizes “putting away” for fornication after the first (wrongful divorce), then why discuss civil procedure, when you could immediately settle this entire controversy by revealing the scripture which teaches post-divorce “putting away”?

----- Original Message -----

From: Steven J. Wallace

To: 'Jeff Belknap' ; 'Morris Bowers'

Cc: 'Tim Haile' ; 'Greg Gwin' ; 'Donnie Rader' ; 'Ron Halbrook' ; 'J. T. Smith' ; 'Connie W. Adams' ; 'David Watts Jr.' ; 'JOhn Smith'

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 7:42 PM

Subject: RE: Request from bro Jeff Belknap

Brother Jeff,

At least you acknowledge that I answered them. I hope Morris will too because I have always counted him a friend and dear brother, yet, I will not show partiality with anyone.

I will answer your questions but will likewise ask you to also answer mine?

1) Does the teaching of Jesus on “putting away” apply to all nations and all cultures?

1a) If “yes,” does it mandate that there must be civil procedures in every case?

2) Does the teaching of Jesus on “putting” away apply to civilizations where “divorce” is not recognized by the government? Wally Little says “no.” I say “yes.” What do you say?

3) Did Isaac need a legal certificate to marry Rebekah (in the eyes of God).

3a) If “YES” please cite the scripture

3b) If “NO” were you the one who added “(However you get married in a culture; requires that civil action to obtain a divorce.)” in Morris’ response?

3c) If “NO” do you also accept that a legal procedure is not inherent to divorce?

4) Do you forbid a woman (vow-abiding) whose fornicating, marital-bed desecrating, husband first sprang divorce papers upon her the right to remarry? If no, how do you reconcile passages like Matthew 19:9?

5) Is civil protocol an absolute necessary part in establishing the meaning of “apoluo.”

6) Does Jesus bind a certificate of divorce today? If yes, please cite the scripture?

7) While I am asking questions, I will throw this one in there perhaps for my own future-personal use. Does God hate each and every single divorce? Please give references?

Please answer these questions as if you were addressing first-century Christians under the laws of their day.

Your questions:

1) Yes, I believe it is possible for a spouse to wrongfully put away their mate. It happens all the time. Where fornication is not a part of the original equation, then remarriage can never be done for either party at least as long as both shall live. While God may recognize such wrong divorces, that doesn’t mean he “approves” of such. By implication, Herodias divorced or divorced Philip. a) Philip may have been innocent of fornication and would therefore have been permitted to remarry if such were true. b) Herodias was guilty of adultery and was not permitted to be married. c) Herod was in fornication and was not permitted to be married to her (Mk. 6:17ff). It is equally possible for one to be married in the (eyes of God) and yet for it to be without approval.

“For Herod himself had sent and laid hold of John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife; for he had married her” (Mk. 6:17).

Question 2 – I am not saying they are still married, yet they are still considered one’s husband/wife. Herodias was “unmarried” to Philip, but was still considered Philip’s wife. How so? Because God “bound” them together. Men manage marriage; God controls the bond. Observe carefully:

“But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife” (1 cor. 7:11).

She does depart
Results in being “UNMARRIED”
Yet may still be reconciled to “HER HUSBAND.”

There you have a woman divorced, no longer married, thus “unmarried” and yet still has a husband. How so? Because God bound them together! It is really so simple.

Question 3 – I explained that in question 2. They may be “departed” or “sent away” and yet still have a “husband/wife.” That doesn’t negate the vow-abiding spouse’s right to remarry again because it was the fornication of the other which led to the divorce in the first place.

Now I answered your questions. I am very doubtful that these answers will in anyway change your mind. If others before me were unable to get you to see these truths, I know that I will not be able. You have too much invested in your doctrine to ever change your mind.

Steven

From: Jeff Belknap [mailto:jeffbelknap@mchsi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:25 PM
To: Steven J. Wallace; 'Morris Bowers'
Cc: 'Tim Haile'; 'Greg Gwin'; 'Donnie Rader'; 'Ron Halbrook'; 'J. T. Smith'; 'Connie W. Adams'; 'David Watts Jr.'; 'JOhn Smith'
Subject: Re: Request from bro Jeff Belknap

Dear brother Steven,

The questions you answered really don't address the heart of the issue. If you really want to be helpful, please answer these two simple questions from scripture:

1) Do you believe that it is possible for one spouse to wrongfully put away their mate (against the innocent mate's will) and it be considered a divorce in the "eyes of God," -- or are they still Biblically "married"?

2) If you say they are still "married," how do you reconcile your understanding to the Bible's reference to such innocent persons as, "put away," "divorced," and "unmarried" - Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Lk. 16:18 and I Cor. 7:10-11?

3) If you say they are divorced (though still bound), please cite the scripture(s) that authorizes one who is what the Bible calls "divorced" or "put away" and "unmarried" to divorce their mate for the cause of fornication when it is committed after they have become divorced?

Please answer these questions as if you were addressing first century Christians under the law(s) of their day.

Thank you,

Jeff Belknap

----- Original Message -----

From: Steven J. Wallace

To: 'Morris Bowers'

Cc: 'Tim Haile' ; 'Greg Gwin' ; 'Donnie Rader' ; 'Jeff Belknap' ; 'Ron Halbrook' ; 'J. T. Smith' ; 'Connie W. Adams' ; 'David Watts Jr.' ; 'JOhn Smith'

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 5:49 PM

Subject: RE: Request from bro Jeff Belknap

Brother Morris:

I am going to try to maintain my patience. You know that I am not “beating around any bush” and have answered your inquiry directly. I said “NO” and “NO!” to your two questions. I cannot be anymore direct than that. I regret your insinuation against me of “beating around the bush” and not using God’s word but relying only upon what men have said.

Yes, I affirm (and always have) that the scriptures teach when fornication is committed by one of the marriage partners, the innocent party may put away (divorce) the guilty for this cause, and then the innocent (ALONE) may remarry without sin. IS THAT CLEAR enough for you? As far as I know, every single person on this new list of yours maintains the very same thing. But some on this list of yours affirms that there can be fornication committed by one of the marriage partners, and that the innocent party may NOT put away (divorce) the guilty if the guilty is the fastest at putting away the innocent and thereby never remarry. One even interrupted a conversation that I was having with Pat Donahue on the subject and blew like a loose fireplug and condemned me for being a false teacher/mental divorcer and then, in the end, stuck his foot, ankle and knee in his mouth by maintaining that the innocent must be fully engaged in the divorce process with the “FULL INTENTION” of putting him away, while it doesn’t matter what the judge says, what the papers say, etc. “Hypocrisy” is what I say it is. Is “full intention” not mental? I have never seen such foolish parties in the church before. Where one can say “intention” + “action” and be labeled a mental divorcer and yet another can say “intention” and used vague terms of “fully engaged,” “not sitting and doing nothing” and not be labeled a mental divorcer. Where this type of garbage goes on only tells me that envy and jealousy are at work.

No I do not affirm, nor have I ever affirmed that there can be a “put away” (divorce) without fornication involved and later if fornication occurs there can be remarriage. If you believe I taught that. CITE THE PROOF! You are surely insinuating such! Please give me the proof and I will repent/confess wrong this moment. I have NEVER taught that. I will NEVER teach that. If anyone has ever told you that I taught that, I challenge them to produces the evidence and if not REPENT for bearing false testimony.

Further, you err in stating that “The "mental divorce" controversy which is causing much unfortunate division in the body of Christ today, has resulted from some who are teaching that there can be a putting away---the dissolution of the marriage---NOT for the cause of fornication, and the LATER if fornication occurs, there can be a remarriage.”

That is not what is causing the division in my assessment. Rather, there are some who are teaching that there can be a putting away where fornication occurred and the innocent cannot remarry if the guilty is the fastest to put away. There are some who are trying to define Jesus’ usage of “put away” by American Law. That is what is causing the division. Whatever God’s law is on “put away” it applies to every culture and society under heaven. It is not limited to AMERICANS in America. That means it applies to Muslim countries too, who without courtrooms, lawyers, judges, etc. may put their wives away simply by saying “I divorce you” three times. Please see Fox News report on “While You Were Sleeping” and my commentary on it. Can God’s law on MDR apply to the Muslim countries with their system for divorce? Can God’s law apply to the Philippines whose country doesn’t recognize divorce? I say “yes.” What do you say?

Morris, to your inserted comments below. “(However you get married in a culture; requires that civil action to obtain a divorce.)”

Are you affirming that marriage may only occur and has only occurred in every culture under heaven since time began with civil legislation and requirements? Yes, in America, I will not, never have, never will marry anyone without a certificate because that is the law AND it doesn’t conflict with God’s word. Should our government stipulate anything that does conflict with God’s law, I will reject it pertaining to marriage or divorce. (Some brethren actually told me that if the government made it illegal to marry, then Christians could not marry. They were saying this to maintain their “race to the courthouse” position.) But please tell me if Samson had to apply for a marriage certificate when he took the woman of Timnah as wife (Jud. 14)? What certificate did Isaac get when he took Rebekah? Where did he even get the certificate? It’s simple: 1) Abraham’s servant went to find a wife for Isaac in the city of Nahor. 2) He brought her back from Mesopotamia and she never knew who Isaac was until introduced. Isaac never knew who she was either? They met for the first time in Genesis 24:65. 3) She then put on the veil. 4) Isaac brought her into his tent and took her as wife (Gen. 24:67). Now, I may not know all that went on in an Ancient Near Eastern Wedding, but I do know that there was no marriage certificate at the a local courthouse that was used for this marriage. Further, I know they were married! Will you say they were not? If so, you speak from what is not there.

Whatever you point about Hailey leaves my mind boggled. Hailey was a false teacher. What is your point. Actually, I am not interested in your point.

Morris, I am not going to continue to answer your emails unless the tone of it changes and changes fast.

For truth,

Steven

From: Morris Bowers [mailto:mb1304@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:17 PM
To: Steven J. Wallace
Cc: Tim Haile; Greg Gwin; Donnie Rader; Jeff Belknap; Ron Halbrook; J. T. Smith; Connie W. Adams; David Watts Jr.; JOhn Smith
Subject: Re: Request from bro Jeff Belknap

Steve,

Give me your assessment of what everyone is talking about when we are discussing the subject of MDR and "mental" divorce.

You know excatly what I mean and what everyone else means when you hear that word in relation to MDR. Quit beating around the bush and give me an answer. Rhonda did.

Just so you know, I don't use Ron Halbrook as my authority on this issue. I don't use you, J.T. Smith, Harry Osborne, Mike Willis or Jeff Belknap; I use only the scriptures as revealed by the Holy Spirit. So, you can stop quoting Ron Halbrook to me. I've got all of his info and we have talked about it before. I was at the 1st GOT lectures and you weren't. Get the book they published entitled, "The Renewing of Your Mind" which chronicles every speaker there and then you will know.

Here is what I mean by "mental divorce:"

The biblical order regarding divorce and remarriage is thus: The Scriptures teach that when fornication is committed by one of the marriage partners, the innocent party may put away (divorce) the guilty for this cause, and then the innocent party may remarry without sin. This is what we read in Matthew 5:32 & 19:9.

The "mental divorce" controversy which is causing much unfortunate division in the body of Christ today, has resulted from some who are teaching that there can be a putting away---the dissolution of the marriage---NOT for the cause of fornication, and the LATER if fornication occurs, there can be a remarriage.

This is WRONG---because the order is wrong! Just like the Baptists are wrong on the order of the plan of salvation, those who are advocating "mental divorce" are wrong because they are the order wrong! Simply put, it is not what the Holy word of God teaches.

Any one that teaches this false doctrine, is teaching something that God did not reveal. I don't care who it is. He is wrong, wrong, & wrong.

Ciao,

Morris Bowers

----- Original Message -----

From: Steven J. Wallace

To: 'Morris Bowers' ; 'Rhonda Clark'

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:16 PM

Subject: RE: Request from bro Jeff Belknap

Brother Morris: “No” and “No” to answer your questions quickly. Morris, if you would read those links I sent you, this whole mess would be manifestly clear for you.

Of course, everything we do requires “MENTAL” power. Marriage and divorce require “mental” involvement but it also requires “action.” To lawfully charge one of believing “Mental Divorce” you must prove that he rejects any outward action to accompany his imaginative divorce. When the slaves used to marry, they mentally accepted each other and then jumped over a broom. Those were binding marriages even though they did not involve civil protocol. They were not “mental alone.” Action was also done. When people divorced in the first-century, one would mentally determine to send the other away and then “sent” them away. When you speak of “Mental Divorce” it is mental without action. That is, two people could separate (waiting game) and then one commits adultery and then the other follows suit and commits adultery. The latter justifies herself saying, “Well, in my mind, I put him away before I committed adultery with this other fellow.” That is mental divorce. But also understand that “Divorce” does not inherently require judges, courtrooms, lawyers, papers, etc. (However you get married in a culture; requires that civil action to obtain a divorce.)It never did in Moses’ day and it didn’t require such in Jesus’ day. However, I would still counsel anyone who divorces to tie up the civil knots as well when they do not contradict God’s word.

I leave you with an excerpt from my good brother and friend, Ron Halbrook in an article that I linked for you to read in an earlier post entitled “Marriage and Government.”

Resisting Apostasy While Avoiding Factionalism

God’s people face the challenge of resisting apostasy while also avoiding factionalism. This requires spiritual strength, maturity, and balance.

"Let your moderation be known to all men. The Lord is at hand" (Phil. 4:5).

We are in the throes of an apostasy because Homer Hailey and others have denied that the divine law of marriage given by Christ applies to the world at large, claiming it applies only to saints. Jim Puterbaugh, Don and Jerry Bassett, and others teach that God permits people to remarry no matter why they are divorced. Such teaching makes a mockery of God’s law on marriage. (Why don't you add Homer Haley to this list. Oh, I see, he was a big shot preacher at FC for 30 years so that makes it o.k. because most of the modern day preachers came from FC and under the instruction of Homer Haley.)

[FN 8]

Faithful saints continue to embrace God’s rule of one man for one woman for life, with only one exception. Within those perimeters, there are differences in semantics and in how to analyze difficult cases. Legitimate points are made on both sides of such questions, but none of us can write a set of rules to cover and settle all of these points and variations of views. People involved in these situations and local churches where they worship will have to make the best decisions they can in the light of the simple principles or perimeters given by God. That is nothing new.

J. T. Smith, Connie W. Adams, Weldon Warnock, Greg Gwin, Donnie Rader, Mike Willis, Harry Osborne, Ron Halbrook, and all other saints committed to the truth on marriage sometimes differ in semantics and in how we analyze difficult cases. There are dozens of such differences, not just one. No two brethren will ever see eye to eye on all such matters. [FN9]

Conscientious brethren united in the truth on marriage hold different views on side issues, details, legal steps, and difficult cases. Brethren have differed on whether 1. the innocent mate must initiate civil divorce proceedings, 2. fornication must be stated as the cause in civil divorce papers, 3. there must be witnesses to the fornication, 4. the innocent mate must countersue if the guilty party sues for divorce, 5. a faithful, innocent mate may remarry if her spouse gets his civil divorce papers one day and enters an adulterous marriage the next day, 6. mates may reconcile after a divorce for fornication, 7. a put-away fornicator may remarry even after his former mate dies, 8. in the case of an innocent party who initiates divorce proceedings for fornication in one jurisdiction, and the fornicator later files in another jurisdiction where the court rules first, the innocent mate may remarry.

What about a couple constantly fighting until they split the blanket, go their separate ways, and marry new mates? Based on the simple and straightforward statement of Jesus in Matthew 5:32, faithful brethren reject these waiting game scenarios where a person abandons his marriage vows and duties, then waits until his mate remarries and commits adultery, and then claims the right to divorce or repudiate his mate a second time by some sort of mental gymnastics. This is called "the waiting game" with "a second putting away" or "mental divorce," and none of the parties to the current discussion countenance such treachery, foolishness, and hypocrisy.

Overreaction, Obsession, and Factionalism

In some quarters, alarm over "the waiting game with mental divorce" is breeding a spirit of overreaction, obsession, and factionalism. Every convoluted or difficult case does not involve the waiting game or mental divorce, but these phrases are being shot around helter-skelter like assault weapons to condemn any and every difference or nuance until they have about lost all meaning. As a result, several matters need to be addressed by those who are pressing these charges.

First, who among us promotes and defends waiting games, mental divorces, adultery, and compromise? Some brethren indict anyone who differs with them on any of the questions listed above, no matter how strongly he upholds the truth on marriage and opposes the current apostasy. [FN 10]

Second, are the men who make these charges going to accuse each other when they differ over similar questions? They need to tell us how they are going to stop this snowball of charges, counter-charges, fracturing, dividing, and factionalism. I recently asked one brother on this panel that question and he said he did not know! Two men who differed with me learned in our conversation that they differed over a similar point and had no explanation for why they might need to separate from me but not from each other!

Third, there is tragic irony in the convoluted and destructive course some men have followed who have been so quick and sharp in charging faithful men with embracing the waiting game, mental divorce, adultery, compromise, and apostasy. Some have canceled meetings scheduled with faithful men over these intemperate charges and brought in men associated with current trends leading into real compromise and apostasy. Some have openly declared they will not work with faithful men who do not see eye to eye with them on one of these points, then have held multiple meetings working with men openly associated with current trends leading into real compromise and apostasy.

Some are fracturing the faithful while extending the right hand of fellowship to men who have manifested the spirit of compromise and apostasy.

If people like Belknap, Watts, Martin, etc. would just open their eyes and their minds they would see that they are causing division where no division SHOULD exist. I would hate to be in their boots on judgment day! “. . .Do you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart still hardened? Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember?” (Mk. 8:17, 18). It doesn’t matter what Ron, Mike or anyone else says, these men will not listen. We can verbally deny mental divorce, waiting game, second putting away. We can affirm divorce and remarriage for only one cause – fornication and it just won’t matter. Some people have to find something to complain about.

Brotherly,

Steven J. Wallace

From: Morris Bowers [mailto:mb1304@charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:09 PM
To: Rhonda Clark
Cc: Steven Wallace
Subject: Re: Request from bro Jeff Belknap

Rhonda & Steven,

Do you 2 honestly believe in what is called "mental divorce?"

I would like a very simple answer.

Are there 2 putting aways?

Ciao,

Morris Bowers