Jesus and Divorce

[Dr. Shane]

     God gave instruction to Moses regarding divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1.  It reads, “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house”.  The word here translated “indecency” is the Hebrew word ervah.  It means nudity, disgrace, blemish, same or uncleanliness.   According to the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, “Her offense could not have been adultery, for that was punished by death (Deut. 22:22; Matt. 19:9).  It was simply some behavior the husband considered improper or disgraceful.  The Jews understood this Mosaic precept to mean that a man might divorce his wife for almost any reason (Matt. 19:4-6).  Christ, explained, however, that it was not God’s will for divorce to be thus easily obtained (Matt. 19:8)”

     Leslie Vernick comments on this in her book “The Emotionally Destructive Marriage.”  “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to people’s hard hearts.  God’s ideal for marriage hasn’t changed.  He still wants it to be a lifetime relationship, but hard hearts still cause serious wounds to people and relationships.  There are times it is just not wise or safe to stay married if the destructive person has not had a change of heart.  They would have too much power to continue to hurt you."

     Protestant Christians traditionally state the Bible only gives one reason for divorce which is adultery, based on the words of Christ (Matt. 19:8).  Some also include abandonment, based on Paul’s epistle (1 Cor. 7:15).  The Seventh-day Adventist church added the Pauline Privilege to the church manual at the General Conference Session in 2000.

     Monicaque Sharman, author of the book, “The Bible, Sex, and this Generation,” points out that she believes the adultery exception spoken by Christ is often misunderstood.  First mentioned during the Sermon on the Mount, Christ was preaching about adultery.  In verse 28 He says that if a man looks on a woman with lust, he commits adultery.  In verse 32, He says if a man divorces his wife, he also commits adultery.  “In Matt 5:32 Jesus is teaching that divorce by the husband is tantamount to breaking the seventh commandment.  If however, the husband has not divorced his wife, and she has sex with another man, then this first husband is not sinning.”).  In this view, Jesus was not saying a man should divorce his wife if she commits adultery.  Nor was He teaching that adultery is a justifiable reason for divorce.  He was pointing out that when a man divorces his wife (which results in her sleeping with another) it is the man that unjustly put her away that is guilty of adultery.  God commanded Hosea to marry a prostitute and never told Hosea to divorce her due to her adultery.  Jesus is not encouraging men to divorce their wives in the event of adultery.  His point is that the man is guilty of adultery when he unjustly divorces his wife.

     These teachings from Jesus are found in Matthew 5:31, 32; 19:4-9; Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18.  Notice that in Matthew 18:4-9, the Pharisees are asking Jesus what the justifiable grounds are to divorce.  Jesus could have simply responded that adultery was the only justifiable grounds but He did not.  In fact, He basically said there are no justifiable grounds.  He said what God has put together, let no man separate.  That was His answer.  Then, to double down on that answer, He said, that if a man divorces his wife he causes her to commit adultery (unless she commits adultery before the divorce).

     Jesus answered the Pharisees’ question in verse six.  The adultery is mentioned in verse nine.  So here is the question.  In verse nine was Jesus making an exception to His response in verse six?  OR in verse nine was He doubling down on His answer in verse six?  How would it be doubling down?  In verse six Jesus said no man is to separate what God has put together.  In verse nine, He is going one step further.  Not only should no man separate what God has put together, if you do, you cause your wife to commit adultery.

     When we look at this passage in Mark, Jesus doesn’t even say anything about adultery when answering the Pharisees.  It isn’t until they go into the house and the disciples ask Him about it that He brings up adultery.  The passage in Luke does not even mention adultery exception at all.

     These passages are problematic.  They are difficult to understand due to the Greek words that were used.  The so-called “adultery” exception isn’t best translated adultery.  The Greek word porneía is the word some English translations have translated into adultery.  That is not the Greek word for adultery and Jesus uses the Greek word for adultery in the same sentence that He uses porneía.  So adultery may not even be the issue in the so-called “adultery exception.”

Remarriage

     The traditional Protestant belief is that if a couple divorces without “Biblical” grounds (i.e. adultery or abandonment) they are not allowed to remarry.  This is based on an interpretation of Matthew 5:31, 32.

It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’  But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

     Dr. Stephen Jones, in his book “The Bible Says: Divorce and Remarriage is Not Adultery” provides an alternative interpretation for these verses.  He contrasts the requirement by Moses to provide a written divorce decree with the Babylonian law (Law of Hammurabi) which only required a verbal directive.  The written decree is the point of emphasis Jesus is making.  When Jesus states he who divorces his wife makes her commit adultery, in context of the previous verse, it is implied Jesus is referring to divorce without a written decree.

     Dr. Jones also provides an alternate interpretation of the term translated adultery in the passage.  Hebrews 12:16 refers to Esau committing adultery but there is no record of Esau having extra-marital sex.  He did, however, marry a Hittite woman.  1 Cor. 5:1 applies the term fornication to incest.  Jude 7 applies the term to going after strange flesh.  These are all examples of unlawful unions.  Thus, Dr. Jones reasons the adultery referenced by Jesus may have applied to an unlawful union.  Thus, a man should issue his wife a written divorce decree unless the marriage was unlawful, in which case a written decree would not be required.

     Some point to 1 Corinthians 7:11 as instruction that a divorced person should not remarry unless they return and remarry the one they divorced.  The verse actually encourages wives to stay with their husband and not leave.  If they do leave, Paul says, let them remain unmarried.  The word translated “leave” is not the same word as divorce.  It simply means separate.  Paul is telling wives that separate from their husbands (without getting divorced) not to marry someone else.

     Jesus taught that the man who divorced his wife caused her to commit adultery and should he marry again would cause his new wife to commit adultery.  There is disagreement among scholars if the “adultery” being referenced by Jesus is a continue state or a one-time act.  When a person divorced without grounds marries again, is the first sexual encounter with the new husband and wife the only act of adultery or is the entire second marriage an adulterous relationship?  Scholars are divided on the answer to that question.

     The case of Will E. gives some guidance on the issue.  Will E’s first marriage ended in divorce, he then fathered a child with another woman and then married a third.  Some brothers felt he should divorce his second wife and marry the woman with whom he had fathered a child (his first wife was already remarried.)  Commenting on this, Ellen White wrote, “I would say his case cannot be improved by leaving the present wife.”[ii]  Years later, Will E. had become a very successful preacher and led many to Christ.  A large church was considering ordaining him as an elder and asked Mrs. White what her opinion was.  She wrote, “I do not think any such questions as that ought to be placed before me… I do not believe that God wants me to take any such burden upon me.”[iii] The decision was left to the local church to decide.

     In Genesis 2:28 God says, “It is not good for man to be alone.”  In 1 Corinthians 7:9, The Apostle Paul, says it is better to marry than burn (in lust) for those that cannot contain themselves.  Does this only apply to those that had “Biblical” grounds for divorce?  Some believe that is the case.  Others disagree.

 

---

Monicque Sharman (2003) The Bible, Sex, and this Generation. New York: iUniverse, Inc., page 81

[ii] Ellen G. White, Letter 175, 1901

[iii] Ellen G. White, Ms 2, 1913

[Dr. Shane]

I am currently studying a unit on divorce in graduate school.  We read everything from the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy to scientific research articles.  Of course, last week's Sabbath School lesson focused on divorce.

I think this is a topic that most in the church really are not well educated on because so little information is provided.  In Sabbath School, the question was asked if remarriage is allowed.  The answer given was only if the divorce was a result of adultery.  I think there is a problem there.  Such a position elevates divorce to a very high level of sin.  It is saying that if a man commits adultery and his wife divorces him for it, he can never remarry.  Or, if a man divorces his wife and she has not committed adultery, he can never remarry.  It is as if he has to pay for his sin the rest of his life.  What other sin is like that?  If I steal from a man is there a punishment that I must endure for the rest of my life or is there a way I receive forgiveness and put it behind me?

I don't think Jesus was saying the man can never remarry.  He said if the man divorces his wife for any other reason than adultery he causes his wife to commit adultery when she marries another man and he himself commits adultery when he marries another woman.  He said this in the same context that he said that when a man looks at a women in lust, he commits adultery in his heart.  He was preaching on the spirit of the law.  A man doesn't commit physical adultery when he lusts after a woman.  He commits spiritual adultery.  It is a sin he needs to repent of.  A man doesn't commit physical adultery when he divorces his wife for a reason other than adultery.  However he commits spiritual adultery (in the same sense as he does when he lusts after a woman) if he remarries.  It is a sin he needs to repent of.

Jesus was not teaching that Moses was wrong to permit divorce. He was teaching that divorce should not be taken lightly which is what the Jews were doing at the time.  Yes, divorce is allowed.  Moses allowed divorce and Moses wasn't wrong to do so.  However Moses allowed it because of the hardness of the heart.  When divorce happens, someone (perhaps both parties) need to repent.  It is not a light matter. However I do not see that Jesus was teaching that a person that gets divorced needs to perform penance for the rest of their lives to atone for it.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Remember that it is the local congregation that has the authority to discipline a member.  In the present day, probably in the NAD,  most congregations treat people involved in divorce with compassion.

Yes, some will likely be able to  post exceptions.

 

 

[Morwenna]

 

 

1

21 hours ago, Shane said:

...

Such a position elevates divorce to a very high level of sin.  It is saying that if a man commits adultery and his wife divorces him for it, he can never remarry.  Or, if a man divorces his wife and she has not committed adultery, he can never remarry.  It is as if he has to pay for his sin the rest of his life.  What other sin is like that?  If I steal from a man is there a punishment that I must endure for the rest of my life or is there a way I receive forgiveness and put it behind me?

...

Is there some distinction between levels of sin? Are not the wages of sin, death? Does not the Lord revisit the sins of the fathers on the 3rd and 4th generations?

 

[Dr. Shane]

There is definitely a difference in the levels of sin.  The two basic differences is that one type of sin is rebellion against God while the other is a failure to make the grade or also known as missing the mark.  It doesn't take too much of a study to realize the levels of sin go deep then that.  If my neighbor sins against me and I can choose the sin he will commit, I quickly start to understand the various levels of sin.  He can trespass by walking on my lawn without permission.  He can steal some lawn furniture from me.  He can vandalize my car.  He can assault me.  He can steal my identity and take out all my money from the bank and borrow huge sums in my name.  He can rape me.  He can kill me.  These are all different levels of sin he can commit against me.  Regardless which one he chooses, if he repents, God will forgive him.  But the damage done by the sin was certainly to different degrees.

What Jesus was really condemn was the casual attitude taken by the Pharisees toward divorce.  They accepted divorce even if a woman didn't cook the food well.  Jesus gave them a metaphorical slap along side the head.  Divorce is a terrible thing.  It is grievous.  Moses gave it because of the hardness of your heart.  Jesus didn't say Moses was wrong to allow divorce because, of course, it was actually God working through Moses that allowed divorce.  Jesus was giving them that metaphorical slap.  He was telling them to wake up and smell the coffee.  Divorce isn't a good thing.  You don't do it just because she didn't wash your clothing or cook your food right.  Divorce is allowed because of the hardness of your heart.  So soften your heart instead of getting a divorce.

Abraham divorce Hager and she did not commit adultery.  Abarham didn't want to divorce her but God told him to.  The Israelites divorced their pagan wives in mass after Ezra returned from exile.  These events have to be reconciled with Christ's teachings.  If adultery is the only justification for divorce, why did God tell Abraham to divorce Hagar?  Why did the Israelites divorce their pagan wives in mass?  I believe it is because it was the lesser of the two evils.  God never desires divorce not even when there is adultery.  However sometimes divorce is the lesser of the two evils.    

 

[Dr. Shane]

16 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Remember that it is the local congregation that has the authority to discipline a member.  In the present day, probably in the NAD,  most congregations treat people involved in divorce with compassion.

I think most churches are looking at divorce as a sin that can be forgiven.  Divorce intervention is helping the divorced people find forgiveness and use the divorce as a new start in life.  Those that look at divorce as a punishment from God or a loss of a divine gift (i.e. a Christian home) are more likely to struggle with depression and anxiety longer than those that view divorce as a time to seek forgiveness and to find a new path in life.

[B/W Photodude]

It seems that the idea is presented that you may marry one person, never divorce, and never again look at another person in the way of having an intimate relationship with them as long as you live. I think that is the model set before us in the Garden of Eden.

But life hasn't worked out that way for us. David, who had multiple wives, was described as a man after God's own heart. Many others in the Scriptures were married to more than one woman. I do note that they were trying to bring people back to the Eden model towards in the New Testament writings. 

While the people of the Old Testament seems to have engaged in parallel polygamy (more than one wife at the same time), it seems to be that today we have adopted serial polygamy (more than one wife, one at a time!).

Much of the discussion regarding divorce seems to end up in a future situation of what not to do. What I really have not seen discussed is what happens when you contemplate your own situation of ex-wives (which may or may not be with biblically grounded reasons for divorce), what should your course of action be then? Chalk it up to experience and stay with current wife? Should a person ever consider giving up current wife? I do note that divorce was sometimes done for religious reasons in the OT.

(Was Abraham ever really married to Hagar? Were men formally married to their concubines?)

[Gregory Matthews]

The SDA church, even if just informally, has generally said that a present legal marriage should not be broken up due to a fact that it should not have taken place.

IOW, if you take the position that following a specific divorce another marriage takes place and that should not have happened, this new marriage should not now be broken up.

However, people can play games.  I am reminded of an actual case:  The husband in what had been a civil marriage decided that in God's eyes civil marriages were not recognized and only religious marriages were recognized.  So, he decided that his civil marriage, in the eyes of God,  did not exist.  So, he filled for a divorce and immediately went looking for a new wife.  He found one and married that woman after the divorce became final.

[Morwenna]

 

 

 

2

On 5/1/2019 at 10:03 PM, Shane said:

There is definitely a difference in the levels of sin.  The two basic differences is that one type of sin is rebellion against God while the other is a failure to make the grade or also known as missing the mark.  It doesn't take too much of a study to realize the levels of sin go deep then that.  If my neighbor sins against me and I can choose the sin he will commit, I quickly start to understand the various levels of sin.  He can trespass by walking on my lawn without permission.  He can steal some lawn furniture from me.  He can vandalize my car.  He can assault me.  He can steal my identity and take out all my money from the bank and borrow huge sums in my name.  He can rape me.  He can kill me.  These are all different levels of sin he can commit against me.  Regardless which one he chooses, if he repents, God will forgive him.  But the damage done by the sin was certainly to different degrees

The difference in the levels as described above are differences in the eyes of man; the damages done by sin are damages in the earthly realm--in a heavenly setting, Jesus died. He gave up His life because of people who murdered others, but He also gave up His life for people who "missed the mark". The wages of sin is still death. Jesus died for all sinners, regardless of the appearance of degree. His death covers all repented sins. 

Every sin ever committed (those repented of and those not repented of) affects the sinner for the rest of their life; the ripple effect demonstrates the far-reaching consequences of sin as well. 

 

 

[GHansen]

Somewhat related to this topic is the saga of a respected and influential SDA leader from EGW's time. This man had an openly inappropriate relationship with a married woman to the point that their affair had become a byword among the brethren. He once was observed on a sofa with his head in the lap of this married woman. EGW was present and later lamented that she had said nothing in this group of SDA leaders about the behavior. Some of the leading brethren wanted to revoke his credentials but EGW said it would be too traumatic for the church to have one of their leading theologians stripped of his position in the church. He was eventually sent to Europe.

Some of this material is covered in MR 21 (pp 379-388) but other documents are retrievable online from the EGW website using the search term "chittenden." In the MR 21, article, EGW names two other ministers whose careers were damaged or destroyed by sexual immorality. She also mentions that sexual sin was coming into the church to a large degree [1886]. This includes self abuse, unholy practices, unlawful intimacy and licentiousness. Material from the EGW online estate indicates that another minister had a problematic interest in a daughter [age unknown] of the woman here described. 

Historic Adventism approved sexual relations only for procreative purposes, contrary to the Biblical admonition that a man enjoy the intimacy of his wife at all times. Kellogg was a great promoter of sexual abstinence, considering the sexual act for other than procreative purposes "excessive."  EGW apparently agreed with this.

[GHansen]

When the church imposes guilt on people who divorce, for remarrying, it creates a situation similar to the requirement that RC clergy be celibate. I doubt that many RC clergy set out to become pedophiles; unfortunately, denying natural instinct does create problems. As early as 1886 to a "large degree," there were problems of an erotic nature in the denomination. Self abuse and violation of the marriage bed were so extensive that EGW devoted an entire small book to the topic. Kellogg wrote extensively on sexual continence, referring to coitus interruptus as a "shameful maneuver."  Sexual relations were considered excessive if indulged for other than procreative purposes. EGW's gift enabled her to visualize inappropriate activities of a sexual nature between Physicians and nurses at SDA health facilities a hundred years ago.  Think the overall situation has improved?

[Dr. Shane]

12 hours ago, GHansen said:

When the church imposes guilt on people who divorce, for remarrying, it creates a situation similar to the requirement that RC clergy be celibate. I doubt that many RC clergy set out to become pedophiles; unfortunately, denying natural instinct does create problems. 

In North America, most churches do not impose a ban on remarrying.  I do not think the historic, Protestant interpretation of the divorce is correct.  That is that Jesus taught Moses was wrong for allowing divorce.  I do not see that Jesus was contradicting Moses.  Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of the heart.  It is thus consistent that the church today allow divorce because of the hardness of the heart.  However we need to support the family and address the hardness of the heart issue.  If a man's heart is hard or a woman's heart is hard, is it really a good idea to force them to stay married?  That is what the historic, Protestant position leads to.

I do believe Ellen White was a prophet but does that mean everything she taught came from God?  Isn't it possible that in some areas she was influenced by the prevailing religious thought of her day?  

[GHansen]

Shane, Until the church really starts disfellowshipping people, who cares who sleeps with who. If  a person can fornicate, divorce and remarry and continue in church fellowship and the Lord's Supper, It's just empty talk. So a person can't hold church office or speak in a business meeting. Who really cares? Disfellowshipping a person means shunning them, forbidding them to participate in church society. SDA don't do that. We could all probably tell  horrible stories about fornicators and adulterers and divorcees, including clergy, who pollute the church. The denomination should refuse their tithe, deny socialization, and the sacraments to disfellowshipped individuals. They should be banned from the church premises and the society of other members.  Most, even in these circumstances, will simply go to another congregation/ denomination.

[B/W Photodude]

Jesus also discussed looking at another person, not your spouse, with lust full thoughts and states they have already committed adultery. So, are they free to divorce and remarry?!

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, B/W Photodude said:

Jesus also discussed looking at another person, not your spouse, with lust full thoughts and states they have already committed adultery. So, are they free to divorce and remarry?!

I'm truly not trying to be sarcastic here; but what exactly is looking at another with lustful thought?  I very much appreciate an attractive woman; and appreciate their best assets. However, I don't mentally undress them or fantasize about intimacy with them.  Is that lust?  I don't think so; and neither does my wife.  If Jesus views it as such, I need a Savior even more than I thought!

[Morwenna]

2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I'm truly not trying to be sarcastic here; but what exactly is looking at another with lustful thought?  I very much appreciate an attractive woman; and appreciate their best assets. However, I don't mentally undress them or fantasize about intimacy with them.  Is that lust?  I don't think so; and neither does my wife.  If Jesus views it as such, I need a Savior even more than I thought!

Lustful thoughts are those thoughts which are spurred on by strong feelings of sexual desire. 

It is my opinion that if a person prays and earnestly seeks the Lord's guidance in regards to what is sinful, they will know when their thoughts are lustful and when they are not: the conscience--as given by God--will yield understanding.

[JoeMo]

12 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I am surprised anyone has to ask it.

It is a rhetorical question.  Like so many other "sins", I believe lust is as subjective as keeping Sabbath.  There is a fuzzy line between appreciation of beauty and lust.  The way I define it is by conscience.  If that "warning bell" goes off in my head, it's time to think a different thought.  But my warning bell may go off sooner or later than someone else's.

[pierrepaul]

22 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

Jesus also discussed looking at another person, not your spouse, with lust full thoughts and states they have already committed adultery. So, are they free to divorce and remarry?!

To be precise, Jesus spoke of lusting after another "woman". My understanding is that the word translated as "woman" means "married woman". This is consistent with the Biblical understanding of adultery which is having sexual relations with another man's wife.

A single man being sexually attracted to a single woman (and having lustful thoughts) is not committing adultery. I would hope that fiancés would be mutually attracted to each other prior to agreeing to wed.

[pierrepaul]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

It is a rhetorical question.  Like so many other "sins", I believe lust is as subjective as keeping Sabbath.  There is a fuzzy line between appreciation of beauty and lust.  The way I define it is by conscience.  If that "warning bell" goes off in my head, it's time to think a different thought.  But my warning bell may go off sooner or later than someone else's.

I see "lust" as the equivalent of "covet". In other words, it requires a mens rea to formulate a plan to take a married woman away from her husband or to induce a married woman to violate her marriage vows.

When I tell someone that I like his new Ferrari, I'm not coveting his property. If I begin to formulate a plan to deprive him of it so that I can have it, now I'm coveting.

If I note the beauty and sex appeal of my neighbour's wife, but I have no intention, plan or thought to contrive a situation where she will violate her marriage vows, I have neither coveted nor lusted.

King David's thoughts and plans regarding Bathsheba are (in my opinion) the archetypical example of lust or coveting. He saw, he thought, he planned, he intended to execute the plan. This is the same sin as executing.

In my opinion, Matthew 5:27-30 has been misunderstood, especially as regards young unmarried men (and women) and the natural thoughts they have towards attractive members of the opposite sex. Too many young unmarried men, full of their God-given hormones, are driven to needless guilt and anxiety over their attraction toward the young women they encounter. Much guilt and anxiety results from fruitless attempts to purge one's mind of all prurient interest, even when no attempt is made to act on such impulses and when the young man's actions are entirely respectful and in keeping with Christian standards.

[B/W Photodude]

23 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I'm truly not trying to be sarcastic here; but what exactly is looking at another with lustful thought?  I very much appreciate an attractive woman; and appreciate their best assets. However, I don't mentally undress them or fantasize about intimacy with them.  Is that lust?  I don't think so; and neither does my wife.  If Jesus views it as such, I need a Savior even more than I thought!

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. Isaiah 55:7

Jesus is said to have never sinned in either thought nor deed. Even our thoughts  must be free of sin.
 
We can go thru all the permutations of married unmarried etc, but you can commit sin in your thoughts. I suspect taking a minute to appreciate her best assets is spending too long contemplating her. Would you spend time appreciating your sister's best assets or your mother's?

Seems there is a line that gets crossed in thoughts, but while some things may occur to one doing the looking, you can move away from those thoughts. Perhaps even Jesus was tempted by the sight of a beautiful woman, but I do not believe he for a second allowed his mind to fantasize a further action. Being tempted is not a sin.

It may seems difficult to not think in those terms, but it also becomes a habit of thought. The more you successfully resist, the less you actually feel the urge to go there.

I would be tempted to say this goes both ways, but I am sure someone will say the Bible never said anything about a woman lusting after a man so I guess the ladies are free to look and fantasize as desired!

[GHansen]

Take a run through Proverbs. See what it has to say about life with a nagging woman, or one who is not dependable or is foolish or contentious or likes to argue. It's better to dwell in the wilderness. It gets lonely out there

[JoeMo]

20 hours ago, pierrepaul said:

I see "lust" as the equivalent of "covet". In other words, it requires a mens rea to formulate a plan to take a married woman away from her husband or to induce a married woman to violate her marriage vows.

When I tell someone that I like his new Ferrari, I'm not coveting his property. If I begin to formulate a plan to deprive him of it so that I can have it, now I'm coveting.

If I note the beauty and sex appeal of my neighbour's wife, but I have no intention, plan or thought to contrive a situation where she will violate her marriage vows, I have neither coveted nor lusted.

Great analogy PP. I think you have explained the difference quite well here.  Thanks!

[Dr. Shane]

On 5/8/2019 at 12:13 PM, The Wanderer said:

May I ask for more explanation on "the Pauline privilege" pls? As in what is that?

The "Pauline" privilege is Protestant terminology.  It is taken from the verse 1 Corinthians 7:15 which reads "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace."

The first assumption in this belief is that Jesus only allowed divorce for the reason of adultery.  I, myself, disagree with that assumption.  I understand Jesus as teaching that divorce is allowed due to a hard heart.  The act of divorce causes the one filing for divorce to be guilty of adultery unless the one being divorced has already committed adultery.  Understand?  If I divorce my wife first and foremost it is because I have a hard heart.  Secondly, by divorcing her and marrying another, I am committing adultery (unless she has already committed adultery) and if she marries another I am causing her to commit adultery.  However, no where in that teaching do I see Jesus saying adultery justifies divorce.  He simply teaches that if she commits adultery first, that I am not guilty of committing adultery for divorcing her (but I may still be guilty of a hard heart).  Jesus teaching was that divorce is allowed only due to the hard heart.  Even when adultery occurs, God's plan is reconciliation - not divorce.

However, if you accept the assumption that Jesus taught adultery is the only justification for divorce, then you have to do something with 1 Corinthians 7:15 where Paul allows divorce in the event of an unbelieving spouse abandoning the believer.  So that is what many Protestant theologians call the Pauline privilege.  The believing spouse is to be granted the "privilege" of divorcing the unbelieving spouse who abandoned her.

Studying the passage more, we find this in 1 Corinthians 7:13 "And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him."  The word willing is the Hebrew word מַשְׂכֹּרֶת and means reward or wages.  So it is not just that he lets her stay in the same house.  It implies that the unbelieving spouse treats her right like an employer that pays his workers the correct wages or gives them their just reward.  The King James translates it "if he is pleased to dwell with her".  Understood as thus, the "Pauline privilege" would allow divorce from an abusive or neglectful unbelieving spouse.  What about an abusive or neglectful believing spouse?  Well, I think the assumption there is that a believing spouse will repent and change their ways.

[Dr. Shane]

On 5/8/2019 at 1:40 PM, B/W Photodude said:

Jesus also discussed looking at another person, not your spouse, with lust full thoughts and states they have already committed adultery. So, are they free to divorce and remarry?!

The entire passage really is about breaking the spirit of the law.  The Pharisees felt they were good with God because they kept the letter of the law.  Jesus pointed out to them they were breaking the spirit of the law.  In lusting after women they were committing adultery in a spiritual sense.  The same was true in divorcing their wives.  They were committing adultery in the spiritual sense.  We all miss the mark.  He was pointing that out to them.

[Dr. Shane]

5 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

IMO the view you have expressed in what I quoted is really off-base, a total fail, as far as sound exegesis would detail. I am a little shocked/surprised to read such a view. Saying that if a person divorces their spouse and marries another is "adultery" just seems really over the top. 

I am actually expressing two views and may be confusing.  I am trying to express both the traditional Protestant view (which is the official position of the Adventist church) and also the view I am inclined to believe but have not completely embraced yet.

The traditional Protestant view does hold that if someone divorces their wife and marries another, they are committing adultery (unless their wife committed adultery first before the divorce).  And if their ex-wife remarries, they are causing her to commit adultery.  That is the traditional Protestant view.  I tend to agree with that to a point except I don't believe Jesus was teaching it was physical adultery but rather "spiritual" - just like lusting after a woman.