Thoughts about the NT, PR, & PC: Matthew 19.1-12 – What Governs the PR?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Thoughts about the New Testament, Personal Relationship, and Private Contract:
Matthew 19.1-12 – What Governs the Personal Relationship?

 
As I stated previously, Matthew 19.1-12 contains eternal principles, but within the context of the moment, Jesus was asked a specific question that related specifically to the Israelite system.

Consequently, Jesus worked within the ancient Israelite National System, to dismiss that reality is to dismiss the entirety of the passage and the entirety of his work in Israel.

Importantly, legally, my personal relationship is not legislated or governed by the ancient Israelite national system.

Instead, I am governed by the SCECS of the United States.

Why?

Because it is the families and entities within SCECS who constitute the Electorate, it is the Electorate who elects officials to represent the Electorate as the State.

As such, there are specific socio-political realities to the nature of the SCECS Accepted Marriage unique to the United States.

Additionally, as I discussed previously, Jesus declared that which God put together humanity should not separate.

So consider how important and critical it is to understand the SCECS Accepted Marriage that I had with Mary was a legal mechanism constructed in the purview of humanity.

That doesn’t mean that I think the SCECS Accepted Marriage is bad, no, it just isn’t the exact mechanism needed for my personal relationship.

However, the SCECS Accepted Marriage was devised by the families and entities within SCECS, working as an Electorate to elect the officials of the State who then defined, developed, and understood the SCECS Accepted Marriage, and assigned accountabilities and responsibilities to those who participate in the SCECS Accepted Marriage; and the families and entities within SCECS continue working as an Electorate to elect the officials of the State who redefine, and redevelop, and re-understand the SCECS Accepted Marriage, and continue assigning accountabilities and responsibilities to those who participate in the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

Back in 1992, Mary’s family and my family believed the SCECS Accepted Marriage met their needs of joining two families. As far as I know, Mary’s family and my family still believe that.

As such, her parents believed the SCECS Accepted Marriage was an appropriate means to govern their daughter’s relationship to me.

That means that her family, along with my family, along with all the other families and entities within SCECS: defined, developed, and provided their understanding of the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

Those definitions, developments, understandings, along with the assigning of accountabilities and responsibilities came from several sources, from the marriage counselor we had to the church teachings, from the preferences of our respective families to the advice that had been given through educators and social leaders.

In creating the SCECS Accepted Marriage, they believed and presupposed that they were working on behalf of something greater, for the benefit of Mary and me.

In a sense, that is not really any different than how Laban was working on behalf of his family, believing and presupposing that what was done was for the benefit of his family.

In that sense, I can’t, don’t, and won’t blame anyone for the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

It is what it is, and it works well for some (many?) (most?) people.

But I have arrived at a place in my personal life that I want to have direct influence and governance of my personal relationship.

If I knew back in 1992 what I know now about the Private Contract, I am not so certain I would have obtained the license/certificate of the SCECS Accepted Marriage that permits families and entities within SCECS to have legal access and authoritative control to define/redefine, develop/redevelop, understand/re-understand my personal relationship, and then determine/re-determine accountabilities and responsibilities for those who participate in the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

Interestingly and importantly, I have no way of knowing if that knowledge would have had a bearing as to whether I would have been able to have a personal relationship with Mary.

Either way, it is immaterial, because I am where I am in the historical timeline.

Additionally, and just as importantly, Mary determined that she believes that it is actually to her benefit to divorce herself from the SCECS Accepted Marriage in order to establish with me a Private Contract, so she too can have direct influence and governance of her personal relationship.

In light of Matthew 19.1-12, Mary and I did not put our personal relationship asunder, to use the King James phraseology.

In other words, we did not separate our personal relationship, because we believe that God led us to each other.

Instead, and this is extremely important, we put asunder the human legal document, the license/certificate of the SCECS Accepted Marriage, in order for us to have the purview to construct our own Private Contract.

Stated another way, we terminated one type of legal contract in order to write a different legal contract.

That is not putting asunder our personal relationship, when all we changed was the legal manner in which our personal relationship is governed.

The difficult thing is that legally and statistically Mary and I are recorded as divorced. That is because the word “divorce” is the terminology given to the termination of the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

As I have shown throughout this material, SCECS and the SCECS Accepted Marriage own the rights, if I can use that phraseology, to the terms: “husband”, “wife”, “marriage”, and also the term “divorce”.

Therefore when one participates in the SCECS Accepted Marriage, one must accept that they will be defined by the terms that are associated with the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

Share