Lobo,

Here are the five questions that Mike Lowe wants you and I and others in opposition to his understanding of the divorce and remarriage issue to answer:

quote:

---

Posted by Mike Lowe:
1. Do you believe Jesus amended the law of God, or do you believe He upheld the law and that it was the Jews who made the law of God of none effect by amending it?

2. Do you believe the words fornication and adultery always and only mean physical sexual intercourse, or do you believe they also include spiritual forms of unfaithfulness?

3. Do you agree that God divorced Israel on account of her spiritual unfaithfulness to the marriage vows (covenant)? And do you agree that it involved one believer (God) divorcing another believer (Israel) and that God was free to remarry, and that He married the Church?

4. Do you believe the married people in Ezra's time, who God ordered to divorce their wives, were guilty of committing adultery? If not, then why did God require them to divorce their wives? and what implications, if any, does it have on this study?

5. Do you believe an abandoned or abused wife must remain unmarried and childless if her husband does not or cannot commit physical adultery? Or do you believe that in such cases women must suck it up and bear their losses faithfully?

---

This topic's focus will be to discuss the above five questions.

Thanks Daryl, this is an important issue for all Christians, not just SDA’s. So I appreciate the opportunity to discuss and gain a new perspective if that is what the spirit wants.

In any case, I will answer Mike’s questions.

1. Do you believe Jesus amended the law of God, or do you believe He upheld the law and that it was the Jews who made the law of God of none effect by amending it?


Let’s first talk about the Jews. Many feel that they added a bunch of stuff to the law as given by Moses, but I don’t believe that is accurate. In review of scripture it seems that the Jews wanted to follow the law to the letter, but since the law was not very specific in some areas they were left to fill in the gaps.

For example, the law stated for no one to carry a load on the Sabbath (Jer 17:21-24). But since a “load” was not clearly defined, the Jews defined it for themselves. That is how it developed into only carrying a few specific things, etc.

We see the same thing with the law to “love your neighbor” (Lev 19:18). Since the Jews were not allowed by the scriptures to live in and around or associate with the pagan nations (Jos 23:7, Acts 10:28), they interpreted this law as meaning they should only love their Jewish neighbors, because they were the only ones who were their neighbors. Understand that when I say this that included converts to Judaism.

Anyway, the point being that since the term “neighbor” was not clearly defined, or defined at all, they took that literally to mean those among their own group. That is why Jesus clarified this law for them in Matt 5.

Next, Jesus did not amend the law as given to Israel or through the prophets, he just revealed the intent behind it that was not literally stated previously or was left to Israel to figure out.

So the intent behind the law to not murder was the thought of murder and anger, etc., that was not previously clearly stated to Israel, so they took it literally as the physical act only. So Jesus only helped to reveal the truth intent behind the law that we previously not clearly defined or not clearly understood.

So what I believe is that neither the Jews nor Jesus amended the INTENT of the law.


2. Do you believe the words fornication and adultery always and only mean physical sexual intercourse, or do you believe they also include spiritual forms of unfaithfulness?

If we use all of scripture as our guide I believe scripture defines these two terms differently. Adultery is defined by Jesus as committing lust or the act of sexual relations with someone other than your spouse in your mind. In other words, your intent is to be unfaithful. Fornication has to do with the act of lust or the act of sexual relations when you are not marred. Again, it’s the intent or lust that is the issue, not really the act. So the only difference in these two terms is one is lust of someone else when you are marred, and the other is when you are not marred.

Understand that this is how God defines it and how he will judge. However, when we human need to make decision based on these issues we don’t have the ability to see intent, so we must go by the physical act.


3. Do you agree that God divorced Israel on account of her spiritual unfaithfulness to the marriage vows (covenant)? And do you agree that it involved one believer (God) divorcing another believer (Israel) and that God was free to remarry, and that He married the Church?

No, I don’t believe this.

If we see the term “spiritual divorce” as meaning rejection, than I believe this idea is contrary to scripture. Paul states that God did not reject Israel (Romans 11). And just because he now allows others into the fold, doesn’t mean he has rejected Israel. Any Jew who becomes a believer will be fully accepted by God and take his/her place as one of the original people God “foreknew” or the remnant.

Now it is true that Israel has be spiritually unfaithful. That is clearly demonstrated by God in the book of Hosea and the definition of Babylon in the last days also fits this description.

However, one thing we need to understand here is that marriage was created for man and was not a universal (all created beings) understanding. Scripture indicates that God only created the women after he saw how alone man was.

So I believe God is only using marriage as an analogy for the church because it is a symbol that man understands and can relate to. However, we cannot then use what God does in context of using these terms as also applying to human literal marriage, because that is not home marriage was designed.

If you believe whatever God has done in relation to “spiritual marriage” literally applies to human marriage, then I guess we can commit adultery and fornication as God supported in Hosea.

I hope this brings to light the fact that “spiritual marriage” is not the same as human marriage. Spiritual marriage is just an analogy for man’s benefit, while human marriage has literal guidelines specified by God that should be followed.

So I see where you are going here, but I don’t believe it is consistent with appropriate exegesis of scripture.


4. Do you believe the married people in Ezra's time, who God ordered to divorce their wives, were guilty of committing adultery? If not, then why did God require them to divorce their wives? and what implications, if any, does it have on this study?

The marrge laws were put in place by God for man and he can change them if he wants to. However, I think if you look at all those instances where God required something different than what was stated in the original Mosaic law you will see that it was symbolic of something else. Just look at Hosea and this is clearly seen.

So again, I don’t believe we can take a symbolic action God is doing to support some other truth and apply it literally to human marriage.


5. Do you believe an abandoned or abused wife must remain unmarried and childless if her husband does not or cannot commit physical adultery? Or do you believe that in such cases women must suck it up and bear their losses faithfully?

When we consider this we must first understand that our determination of adultery and fornication is different than Gods. So while God determines these things by one’s intent, as I defined under question 2, for our action we must view this as literally physical because we cannot judge someone’s intent or heart.

So since I believe Jesus was talking about our (Man’s) judgment in relation to action we take, a person in this situation must go by what Jesus stated.

However, you raise an interesting issue with someone who cannot commit physical adultery. If someone is injured or cannot have sexual relations, I would estimate that to whatever extent that person could engage in physical relations would be the same thing. In other words, the marriage bond is about intent and mutual trust. So to whatever extent you have physical evidence that that bond is broken would constitute adultery.


Mike, these are good questions, and I don’t propose to have all the answers. I just indicated what I currently hold to be true. And believe me, without going into detail, this is an issue that is paramount in my life at the moment. An issue I thought I never would have to deal with. So the unfortunate fact is that I would very much like to see this your way, it certainly would be easier. But I can’t in good conscience do that. But understand that I am included in “bearing their losses faithfully” category you mentioned above. So I don’t say these things lightly.

Lobo, thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts here. Not everybody has been as accommodating. Again thank you.

First of all I want to share my deepest and heart felt sympathies concerning your personal life as it relates to marriage. I won't pry so suffice it to say - You are in my prayers. I have been in your shoes before, and I know how much it hurts, especially if children are involved. I love you, brother.

I respect and admire your determination to live in agreement with the intent of God's word. You are a solid student of the word. I realize we do not always see eye to eye on certain issues, but this much we do agree on - "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Mat 4:4. Thank you Jesus!

I believe the Jews understood the evangelistic nature of their calling and purpose. Yes, they did go over board in an attempt to avoid being influenced by their pagan neighbors, especially after their babylonian captivity. But I think it is pretty clear that Jesus felt it was necessary to correct some of the additions and amendments the Jews had made over the years to the laws of God. It was also needful to help them understand the spiritual intent of others.

I like what you wrote about the meaning inherent in the laws of God, things which Jesus labored to help us grasp and comprehend. The law of God, as I understand it, embraces every facet of life - our thoughts, words, deeds and motives. Nothing is hid from God, who is lovingly jealous for our entire well being. Happiness begins in the heart and soul, and anything or any sin that threatens to rob us of the joy of Jesus God has, does and will continue to require - Thou shalt not!

Which is also why I firmly believe any thought, word, deed or motive that violates our peace of mind is resolutely disallowed by our heavenly Father and Brother. Thus when God commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery, it naturally includes thoughts and words and motives as well as deeds. You wrote we cannot discern the secret thoughts and motives of others, which is true, however we can know them based on observable behaviour.

For example, a person is guilty of adultery or fornication if they lust after a woman (or a man in the case of women). We can know a person by their fruits, thus if they enjoy looking at porn movies or magazines, or express their lustful wishes about the opposite sex, or get physical, or masturbate regularly - we can easily determine their guilt. Therefore, according to the intent of the law, divorce and remarriage are lawful when a spouse is guilty of lust.

BTW, isn't it true that biblical similes and analogies are based on literal applications and observations? If so, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the spiritual adultery God condemned in the nation of Israel was based on the intent of the laws of divorce and marriage? Makes sense to me. I don't see God bending the rules of good exegesis in order to accuse Israel of adultery. The analogy fits perfectly because it's based on the truth.

Mike, I hesitated to share my personal situation as I really don’t feel that welcome on this forum anyway and don’t need anymore criticism. But your response is very much appreciated and I thank God for you.

As for the rest of your post, I know God has done different things in the past with Israel, but I believe the NT should interpret the old. And to me, Jesus clearly stated what he wanted to occur in terms of divorce. So unless there is some other NT guidance on the subject from Jesus, or a disciple communicating God’s will, I have to go with the direction he gave.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a legalist and I’m not perfect. But I need God in my life right now and I don’t want to do anything to jeopardize his leading and direction. I’m starting to understand how Job felt.


So I’m not doing this to try and work my way to heaven. I’m doing this to ensure, as much as I can, that God will continue to lead me down the right path.

Thanks again for your understanding my friend.

Lobo, I believe Paul applied the laws of divorce and remarriage in the case of abandoned spouses. When he wrote in such cases a spouse is not under bondage I believe it is clear he meant under the bondage of law and as such they are free to divorce and remarry. Not that they are free to divorce and remarry at the drop of a hat. God forbid! But if after extensive counseling fails to yield favorable results then an abandoned spouse is free to remain married, or to get divorced and stay single or to get remarried.

1 Corinthians
7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

By comparing this passage with the following one I believe it is safe to assume that "not under bondage" in the case of abandoned spouses means no longer "bound by the law" of marriage. I realize death and abandonment are two totally different situations, however my point here is not to compare apples and oranges but to simply clarify what "not under bondage" means in the context of Pauline literature.

Romans
7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

Thanks Mike

How do you then resolve this issue:
“10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?”

So Paul is extending Jesus command by adding the “unbelieving spouse” issue, which seems to conflict with Jesus statement. However, Jesus never addressed the unbelieving spouse issue, did he?

And I would be fine in taking Paul’s ford for it here accept that he makes a clear distinction here between what he is saying and what the Lord has stated. Why does he do that if his direction also comes from the Lord?

It seems the same as EGW saying “I was shown”, indicating direct revelation and saying “this is my advice or direction”.
So what is your take on this?

Don't stop there, keep reading. Look what he says at the end of the discussion.

1 Corinthains
7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

Does this change the picture any?

The issue becomes difficult for human beings because we can see suffering in relationships and we want to solve the suffering. I believe that Jesus gave His counsel in Matthew 19. I also believe that Jesus put a boundary on the divorce for "every cause" concept Matthew 19:3. If we extend your thought Mike then every evil thought would be grounds for divorce. Masturbation could be considered grounds for divorce for the lust of another woman than your wife or husband. By the time we were done everyone could get a divorce and we would have typical Babylonian relationship patterns.

I believe that God wanted us to marry in accordance to the Bible pattern - Jesus picking our mate for us. Most of us will not submit to this process and we make our own decisions on how to implement it. When we get into our own mate selection process, find that it turns out poorly we are ready to try our process again, and again and again. Each time we conduct our own process we cause the very suffering Mike is trying to solve.

I think divorce is a total antithesis to the gospel. It is a functionally necessary evil. God did not intend for any divorce at any time. There was to be no hurting in all of His holy mountain. No killing, no death, no pain, no suffering. Sin has cause all of this. Divorce is a fruit of sin. Jesus wanted us to hold divorce to a minimum just like He wants us to hold surgery to a minimum. God's plan is to reduce surgeries, hospital visits, doctor visits, to an absolute minimum for He wants us to live a life that will reduce these things to the minimum by living a life compatible with the truths that He has given us.

Lobo:
Sorry about the feelings you have on the board. I personally like your testimonies. There is always room for honest disagreement for iron sharpeneth iron. In reference to your personal issues. I praise God that you are willing to intrust your issues into the hand of God. This is the Nazarite vow, in my opinion. Total committment and total trust in Jesus to supply all your needs in Christ Jesus is one of the prepartory issues of preparing for the second coming of Jesus.

Greg, I agree with you that secret sins of the soul (i.e., lust) should not account for the sum total of divorce. But would you agree that they are stepping stones to physical sins? and that the law condemns it as adultery? If opportunity or ability are the only things lacking in cases of abandonment I believe the abandoned spouse, according to Paul's inspired counsel, is no longer obligated by the laws of marriage.

Clearly physical adultery is not the only just cause for divorce and remarriage else God would not have commanded the post-exilic Jews to divorce their wives and Paul would not have made concessions for abandoned spouses. I also believe truly committed spouses are not searching for excuses to get divorced. Even in cases of real or imagined adultery they are willing to give peace a chance, willing to forgive.

Please reread the following post and share any feedback:

1 Corinthians
7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

By comparing this passage with the following one I believe it is safe to assume that "not under bondage", in the case of abandoned spouses, means no longer "bound by the law" of marriage. I realize death and abandonment are two totally different situations, however my point here is not to compare apples and oranges but to simply clarify what "not under bondage" means in the context of Pauline literature.

Romans
7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

If Paul doesn't mean what he wrote then what else can it mean? Please provide textual support. Thank you.

Mike, I did read all of 1 Cor 7, but honestly I am not able to see what apparently you do. I will keep reaching and praying about it.


Greg, thanks for the input. I feel like shaving my head (Nazarite Vow)

I really appreciate what you stated out our own mate selection process. I can tell you first hand that that is the gospel truth. However, I myself am going to try and not make that mistake again and repeat the pattern.