Ben Mayes’ new book on marriage has caused some stir as he has been advertising it online. My critique is not from the book itself (yet) but from his presentations online. I contend it is a radical departure from the entire Lutheran heritage and teaching on marriage.
Marriage is obvious, yet Christians have struggled to define it properly. Rome sets up two kinds of marriage: one for the baptized and also one for regular civil marriage. But the duties, purposes, and results of these marriages are the same. Luther realized that “spiritualizing” marriage takes a universal fact and natural good (based on our creation as male and female) and turns it into a separate ecclesiastical legal matter. Hence, Rome has all sorts of rules and its own court system to deal with remarriage (they would not call it that but “annulment”).
Annulment is a declaration that a marriage never existed. Legally, there is such a thing in the civil realm as recognizing a marriage as never valid (such as in bigamy or lack of consent). But the Church teaches marriage not as something otherworldly but instructs Christians how to live within the one-flesh reality that God creates.
The main issue with those pushing a Roman system (under the guise of taking marriage seriously) is they fail to recognize what marriage actually is and how it can end. It is not a specifically Christian domain upon which they may legislate. The argument that wise counsel is good is not the same as demanding a new administrative arm in a church body.
Marriage is the most natural thing in the world—almost all participate in it (or imitate it), except for those with the gift of celebrity. What makes Christian marriage differ? In external ways there is no difference: commitment, children, and marital duty are found in both. The individual in marriage may see it not as lasting to death, but as a temporary arrangement. But is there a one-flesh union? Certainly. Even causal sexual relations with a hired person cause such a bond by the work of God: “Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” That is immorality since the divorce is assured and the public commitment never existed. Yet an act of adultery, or breaking of that (illegitimate) union, still occurs.
Jesus speaks words that have troubled many experts: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” Mark 10:11. The adultery dissolves the one-flesh union, which can be broken. So adultery and divorce are interchangeable (theologically), which is how Jesus speaks. Legal divorce does not break God’s union but rather the physical act of joining with another does. When the person divorcing does remarry or consummate a new one-flesh union, adultery is the result, even for the person who wanted to remain married: the one-flesh bond is broken.
“What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matt. 19:6. Man should not separate a union God makes, but he certainly can. Therefore, Lutherans introduced divorce—and the bond once broken need not be restored (though it certainly can when done willingly and when neither is married). Rome’s legal system that traps consciences and exerts external control over the natural gift of marriage was done away with by Lutherans, which is consistent with their teaching.
The issue is whether marital relations create a new one-flesh bond and how many one-flesh bonds a person can have simultaneously. One flesh implies one man and one woman, not multiples of either gender. No where in Scripture does it say a person may have more than one—marriage is exclusive by its nature.
Jesus does allow for divorce—though it implies adultery or is its consequence—for sexual immorality (and even legal remarriage). The point is that in the adultery (or divorce that will eventually become so in the remarriage or the future joining to another), the one-flesh bond is broken in favor of the new one. “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” Luke 19:9.
We must think in terms of the one-flesh bond, not some New Testament Levitical code, which much be kept pure. The goal of a Christian is not to be sinless but to live repentantly by the forgiveness of sins. This will mean also striving not to sin out of respect for the will of Christ.
It seems unfair to the innocent party to be made part of adultery in divorce, but the reality is exactly that. The so-called innocent party (who is never completely innocent before God’s law) is truly separated because one man and one woman are required to have a one-flesh bond. But adultery or remarriage breaks that existing bond, so it no longer exists. Yet, the reality does not instruct the conscience—it is simply a fact. Yet, it should not be a free-for-all, though making new, unbiblical, ecclesiastical laws where Christ has not made them is patently not the answer.
Can the divorced remarry?
Civilly, the question is answered. It could cause adultery before God, but the church only speaks to the repentant or at least those who want to appear Christian. So it is not a legal matter. The penitent will heed God’s Word—extra ecclesiastical supervision, church judicial decisions, and pastoral coercion are not needed, nor helpful. But the impenitent cannot be compelled to do what is right—they are to be treated as pagans and tax collectors. Marriage is a natural estate not regulated by the church. The church speaks God’s Word to those married and unmarried. It is still better to be married in remarriage than to burn with sin (1 Cor. 7).
How do we deal with the impenitent? Those who say remarriage is not allowed for the non-innocent party, advocate breaking a marriage already existing, in the case of those already legally married. The one-flesh bond is not eternally permanent—adultery and death break it. Once remarried, despite the reasons and motives for entering matrimony, they have a one-flesh bond to not be disturbed. How does breaking up a new marriage to potentially restore a past, broken one help? If the former spouse is remarried, the complications are obvious, and solutions to a legalistic Roman position are all poor. Applied absolutely, this would lead to more sin and disorder—so a casuistic and cautious approach is usually sought, which proves very difficult to manage; hence the need for experts and church lawyers.
But God’s Word is quite simple regarding marriage. If a person is guilty of breaking a marriage or has initiated an unbiblical separation, that repentance should not lead to more adultery! Calling a remarriage invalid through annulment does not change the reality of the one-flesh union God creates—man does not create it through his word or nullify it through man-made councils or committees. If the other spouse has remarried, there is no clean solution. But repentance is a state before God, not a direct action we do. Sometimes there is no remedy for sin practically—forgiveness is not a legal decision of man; it flows from the resurrection of Christ.
Pastoral care and careful casuistry are not legal matters. In theory, these situations are complex in the abstract, but in actuality it is quite easy to discern whether a person wants to honor Christ right now. The sinners’ options are actually quite limited in actuality (by the aggrieved party and current spouse). One cannot reconcile with a person already married—that could break up one or two existing marriages to potentially restore a former bond that does not actually exist anymore!
Reasons for the Roman Position
Rome’s rule-based approach to marriage sounds like it honors marriage by making divorce impractical or impossible. But it ends up restricting consciences and those tempted by lust in a legalistic and heavy-handed way. Remarriage, where adultery is the result, is the painful truth. But sin cannot be completely avoided, even by the penitent in all cases. Adultery is not the unforgivable sin; Christ did die for it.
But are those living in a second legal marriage continuing in a state of impenitence? That is the contention of those advocating for annulment (which is completely without scriptural support; in truth, an invented fiction theologically) and the breaking of marriages of those who don’t meet certain standards. But the truth is established by the one-flesh bond that exists, which God works through the physical act of uniting.
To break up an existing valid civil marriage, despite how flawed the reasons for entering that new union were, is a breaking of God’s work—a real one-flesh union. Faith is not needed for marriage, nor the church’s permission. Yet those who are married should heed God’s Word. They need to be told to be faithful and that divorce is not an option for the Christian. Only the unbeliever will break what God has joined: “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace” 1 Cor. 7:15; That includes remarriage.
But so human churches can retain a charade of civil power, Rome and Romanizing Lutherans advocate for the potential breaking of one-flesh bonds because of past sins. But ongoing sin requires ongoing impenitence and rebellion against God’s will. Staying married then is called sinful for a possible return to the marriage bond, which does not exist. Adultery is serious—not just as a no-no, but because it violates and destroys God’s own work in his union of man and woman; it breaks what God has joined.
The implications of forcing the married (even with children and grandchildren) to act like they were never married show the farce of annulment. It cannot be defended legitimately from Scripture, nor does it honor marriage in the end. St. Paul, in concluding his section on marriage, relates, “Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches” 1 Cor. 7:17. The present calling is not undone by past injustice—indeed, a marriage is not an extra-worldly sacrament that maintains legal control over a person. It does not imply adultery does nothing to the one-flesh bond. Indeed, to uphold marriage, we must categorically state the harm and decisive evil of adultery and divorce. The breaking of marriages of impure provenance does not promote marriage, nor the living out of the Christian life before the Lord in faith and true obedience. —ed.
