Biblical Inquiry on Divorce

April 20, 2017

Purpose of Inquiry: To discover if there are Biblical grounds which justify divorce and permit re-marriage.

The position of the church manual is currently that divorce is only allowed due to adultery and the abandonment by an unbelieving spouse. If divorce occurs for any other reason, the parties are not to remarry.

This study seems to draw conclusions but the intention is really to stimulate thought and additional questions. My desire is to dig deep into the text not only by examining the original language and grammar but culture at the time and issues that were going on in society.

I have more questions than answers. The deeper I dig into this study the less clear the issue becomes. I am corresponding with some Adventist leaders about it but I do find many are not interested in digging deep into it. The official church position stated in our Church Manual seems (to me) to be arrived at from a superficial reading of the Scriptures. I am willing to be shown were I am in error on that but that hasn't happened yet.

Christ’s Commentary

Matthew 5:31, 32 It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Mathew 19:4-9Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Mark 10:2-12:Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” “What did Moses command you?” he replied.They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

Luke 16:18: Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Passage Exploration

The passage from Matthew 5 is taken from the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was teaching on the spirit of the law. The chapter starts with the Beatitudes which teach us to love our enemies. Verses 13-16 teach that believers are to the light and salt of the earth. Believers are to show other people God’s love by demonstrating it. In verses 17-20 Jesus declares His purpose is to fulfill the law and not abolish it. In verses 21-26 He talks about hate being the same as murder. This ties into the Sixth Commandment. In verses 27-32 He talks about adultery. This is the Seventh Commandment.

In discussing the Seventh Commandment, Jesus states that if one lusts, he is guilty of adultery. He then states that if one divorces his wife, he forces her to commit adultery (unless she commits adultery before the divorce). The question then becomes: Is Jesus teaching that adultery is grounds for divorce? OR is Jesus simply teaching that a man who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery (unless she commits adultery before the divorce)? This is an important question because we can answer no to the first one and yes to the second one.

Notice that in the second passage in Matthew, 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.

Thoughts to consider

· Since the passages in Matthew can be interpreted two way, other portions of Scripture must be used to better understand them.

· God never changes “For I am the Lord, I change not” (Malachi 3:6)

· “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)

Paul’s Commentary

1 Corinthians 7:10-16: To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To 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. 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. For 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. But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Passage Exploration

In verses 10 and 11 Paul summarizes Jesus’ teachings. Notice, there is no adultery exception list. In verses 12 to 16 Paul adds to the Lord’s teachings. If Jesus taught that adultery was the only justifiable reason for divorce, Paul would be contradicting Him. Paul would be adding an additional reason. Paul is stating the believer who is abandoned by an unbeliever is “not bound”. In other words, they are free to marry another.

What is most interesting is the reasoning that Paul gives here. He states that God has called us to live in peace. This begs the question regarding the person living in an abusive marriage. Under old English law, spousal abuse was listed as constructive desertion and divorce was granted on those grounds. Someone living in a toxic marriage is not experiencing the peace God has called us to.

Abraham’s Divorce

Genesis 21:8-12: So the child grew and was weaned. And Abraham made a great feast on the same day that Isaac was weaned. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, scoffing. Therefore she said to Abraham, “Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, namely with Isaac.” And the matter was very displeasing in Abraham’s sight because of his son. But God said to Abraham, “Do not let it be displeasing in your sight because of the lad or because of your bondwoman. Whatever Sarah has said to you, listen to her voice; for in Isaac your seed shall be called.”

Passage Exploration

Abraham obeyed Sarah’s voice because of God’s command and “sent her away” (Genesis 21:14). The Hebrew word גָּרֵשׁ (gârêsh) Sarah used when she said, “Cast out” in verse 10 means exactly that, but it is also translated “divorced” in Leviticus 21:7, 14; 22:13; Numbers 30:9 and Ezekiel 44:22. The Hebrew word יְשַׁלְּחֶהָ (shallechehâ) used in verse 14 for “sent her away” means exactly that, but is also translated “divorce” in Deuteronomy 22:19, 29; 24:4 (“divorced”); Jeremiah 3:1 (“divorces”) and Malachi 2:16. When it comes to dealing with one’s wife, casting out and sending her away equals divorce (see also Deuteronomy 24:1, 3; Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:8). The language here is definitely that of divorce. Abraham divorced, sent away, cast out, his wife, Hagar (Genesis 16:3), and this was all done by the direct command of God.

In Patriarchs and Prophets, Ellen White wrote, “The Lord, through a holy angel, directed him to grant Sarah’s desire; his love for Ishmael or Hagar ought not stand in the way, for only thus could he restore harmony and happiness to his family.” “Both Abraham and Sarah distrusted the power of God, and it was this error that led to the marriage with Hagar.” (p. 146, 147) God had Abraham divorce Hagar to keep peace in the family. Peace. Just like what Paul said we are called to in his reason for allowing divorce in the case of an unbeliever abandoning a believing spouse.

Neglecting a Purchased Wife

Exodus 21:7-11: If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Passage Exploration

Here we have a purchased wife. A man sells his daughter to another man. If the man does not want her (after buying her) he cannot sell her off to foreigners. He can give her to his son but he then must treat her as his daughter. If he marries another woman and neglects the purchased wife by not feeding her, giving her clothing or having sexual relations with her, she has the right to go free without paying him anything. In other words, even though she is a purchased wife (bought and paid for) if she is neglected, she can divorce the man that bought her and go free.

Here we see the Bible allowing divorce in cases of neglect. This is very similar to Paul’s teaching of abandonment but with one major difference. There is no unbeliever involved in this case. Both the man and the purchased wife are Israelites.

Mass Divorce of Pagan Wives

Ezra 9 and 10 (Passage too long to quote here)

Passage Exploration

In this passage Israelites returning from Babylon marred pagan wives. When Ezra discovered this, he was devastated. This was forbidden in Deuteronomy 7:3, 4. This sin led to the nation being taken captive into Babylon to begin with. So it was agreed the men would divorce their wives. The men in this story divorced their wives because the wives were leading them into idolatry. The principle seems to be the lesser of the two evils. God does not desire men to divorce their wives not does He desire me to worship idols. Divorce was the lesser of the two evils.

God Hates Divorce

NASB Malachi 2:14-16: Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’ Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth.For I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the Lord of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.”

NIV Malachi 2:14-16: You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth. “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the Lord Almighty.

Passage Exploration

This passage is difficult to translate which can be seen by comparing these two different translations. In the NASB it says God “hates divorce.” The NIV translates that passage “The man who hates and divorces his wife…” So it is not clear if the word hate is referring to God hating divorce or the man hating his wife.

One thing that is clear, the men would being cruel to the wives of their youth. Malachi was a contemporary with Ezra. The two prophets lived at the same time. We know Israelites were taking pagan wives. During this same time period when there were Israelites mass divorcing their pagan wives, Malachi was scolding those that had Israelite wives but were divorcing them for pagan wives.

This passage is often quoted to “prove” God hates divorce. The original language is too difficult to translate to prove that by itself. However Christ’s words themselves state that no man should separate what God has joined.

Summary

Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of men’s hearts. Another way to say that is that Moses permitted divorce because we live in a sinful world. Divorce was never part of God’s plan. However we still live in a sinful world. God calls us to peace.

Abraham could not have peace in his home unless he divorced Hagar. That was unfortunate but is still true today in many cases. Many Christians find themselves in toxic marriages. They try to fix it with marriage counseling and sometimes by separating but it takes two willing people to make a marriage work.

Christ is clear that God never intended for men and women to divorce each other. He did not teach, however, that Moses was in error to allow divorce. He simply pointed out that it was because men had hard hearts. It is still true today. Divorce happens because one or both spouses have a hard heart. Some hard hearts commit adultery. Some hard hearts physically abuse their spouse. Some hard hearts are so emotionally abusive they create a toxic environment.

God calls us to have a heart of flesh, not of stone. However it takes two. If one of the spouses is not willing to take a look at themselves, admit errors and try to change,,, it can get to the point where it is constructive desertion.

Divorce hurts innocent children more than it hurts anyone else. A Christian must always consider which is the lesser of the two evils. When underage children are involved, the evil of divorce is much greater than when it is a marriage that has not produced children. When children are involved, the parents should feel a much greater responsibility to try and work out the issues and save the marriage from divorce.

Are there “Biblical grounds”? That depends on how a person defines “Biblical grounds.” Christ made it clear that man should not separate what God has put together. If “Biblical grounds” describes an action consistent with the will of God, the answer is no. There is no divorce that is consistent with the will of God. If “Biblical grounds” describes an action which God allows due to a sinful world, the answer is yes. Divorce is allowed due to hard hearts.

April 21, 2017

Shane: The official denominational position, as stated in the CHURCH MANUAL, treats fornication the same as adultery. It should be noted that fornication includes more than adultery.

However, the position stated in the CHURCH MANUAL does not reflect the typical actual practice in the NAD.

April 21, 2017

1) Perhaps the word "man" actually means humanity?

2) I would like you to prepare a listing of the Biblical verses in the OT that tell of the ability of the male ot divorce his wife and compare it with a listing of the Biblical verses in the OT that tell us of the ability of a female to divorce her husband.

NOTE: I once was living in an Asian country when the Supreme Court of that country made headlines. A woman had sued her husband for divorce. For the first time in that country, the Court had ordered the divorce to go through AND for a short period of time it had ordered the husband to make payments to the now former wife. This had never before been done in that country.

NOTE: If you want the details: He was a physician. He had married her, a nurse, while in medical school and she had put him through school. Now, as a physician he had wanted a divorce so he could marry someone else.

April 21, 2017

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

While divorce may "hurt innocent children," staying in an abusive, possibly life-threatening relationship because "its the Christian thing to do," can get people killed, or hurt and/or scarred for life. Before one does their theological cleanups, they should consider all of the facts.

I was speaking there in general based on statistics. Not all divorces are the same and not all children are the same. Some children adjust well to a divorce and do not seem to be impacted at all. Generally speaking, the children tend to be the most damaged by a divorce.

I am not convinced that staying in an abusive relationship is the Christian thing to do. However, when we are talking about emotional abuse, those involved in the relationship are so emotionally attached to the situation it is hard for them to determine where the line should be drawn. Ellen White does talk about staying in an emotionally abusive marriage and framing it as missionary work. In some cases, the children do need to be removed from an emotionally abusive home but in many cases to remove them would do additional harm and they are better off growing up in a somewhat dysfunctional home than being traumatized by divorce. I am of the opinion that people in that position not only need to pray a lot but also get counseling. When emotional abuse is present, typically both spouses are doing it but using different methods. Even just one spouse going to counseling alone can make the home a much healthy place for the children.

So yes, I was speaking in general and I do not believe that staying in an abusive home is always the Christian thing to do.

Thank you for responding to the post.

April 21, 2017

11 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

the position stated in the CHURCH MANUAL does not reflect the typical actual practice in the NAD.

I understand that getting things changed in the Church Manual is difficult because it must be done at the General Conference Session. Many of our brothers and sisters from African and Latin America areas are influenced a lot by the Catholic culture. That is one of the reasons women ordination has not been passed.

April 21, 2017

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I would like you to prepare a listing of the Biblical verses in the OT that tell of the ability of the male to divorce his wife and compare it with a listing of the Biblical verses in the OT that tell us of the ability of a female to divorce her husband.

Exodus 21:7-11 is the only OT passage I can think of that allows for a woman to divorce her husband. Interestingly the grounds for such a divorce are neglect. The passage states that the husband must provide her with food, clothing and "her duty of marriage" and if he neglects to provide her these things she is free to leave him.

April 21, 2017

42 minutes ago, Shane said:

In some cases, the children do need to be removed from an emotionally abusive home but in many cases to remove them would do additional harm and they are better off growing up in a somewhat dysfunctional home than being traumatized by divorce.

We seem to have here a 'scale' for trauma, some is okay but higher up the scale is not okay. I disagree. We need to see some data to support the idea that 'emotionally abuse', what ever that includes and needs defining also, is less traumatic than 'divorce'. What level of 'dysfunctional' is okay? Another scale meter needed?

April 21, 2017

Here is a list of emotionally abusive behaviors I pulled out of a book I read about emotional abuse. In the author's opinion, a person needs to be doing at least five of these behaviors before it amounts to emotional abuse.

Calls you names such as stupid, worthless or sexually degrading terms.
Mocks or belittles you
Says no one will ever want or love you
Uses pressure to get you to do things you do not want to do
Threatens to leave, divorce, break-up and take children if there are any
Uses the Bible to criticize or condemn
Tells you who your friends can be
Dictates how often you can see or talk to family
Undermines you with your children (in ways other than speaking poorly about you)
Speaks poorly about you to your children
Speaks poorly about you to others (family, friends, neighbors, church members)
If you don’t do what your spouse wants, you will pay for it one way or another
Your spouse breaks things around the house when they are angry
Your spouse screams and cusses at you
When you share your feelings, your spouse laughs or uses them against you.
Your spouse says you can’t live without them
Your spouse nags or badgers you until you give in
Your spouse keeps you up at night trying to get you to agree with them. (This can be that they wake you up in the middle of the night or simply start talking once in bed and at your regular bedtime.)
Your spouse tries to convince you to do something you don’t want to do while having sex (not a sexual act rather something else like spending money, etc.)
Your spouse withholds sex as a punishment (doing this for one night when he or she is upset does not count)
Your spouse calls or texts frequently asking where you are
Your spouse monitors your emails, social media and internet use
Your spouse accuses you of doing things you don’t do
Your spouse uses negative interpretation. They don’t give you the benefit of the doubt.
Your spouse demands your attention when you are busy with something else
Your spouse doesn’t like it when you get positive attention from someone else
Your spouse tells you not to tell anyone what happens between the two of you
Your spouse uses sarcasm and ridicule to get your to stop talking or change your mind
Your spouse refuses to listen to your point of view
Your spouse blows up when asked why they did something
Your spouse physically restrains you to keep you from leaving in a volatile situation
Your spouse threatens to harm you
Your spouse uses physical force to get you to either do something or stop doing something
Your spouse has injured you
Your spouse threatens to harm things that are important to you (pets, children, reputation or property)
Your spouse uses physical force to coerce you sexually OR makes fun of your sexual performance
Your spouse withdraws from you as a means of punishment
Your spouse refuses to respond when you ask questions
Your spouse changes the subject when you try to bring something up that is bothering you
Your spouse ignores you for long periods of time
Your spouse refuses to engage in family activities
Your spouse claims you are mistreating them
Your spouse says the problems in the marriage are your fault
Your spouse acts different in public than in the home
Your spouse doesn’t say how much money they earn
You have no voice regarding the finances – or they will not help with the finances and make you pay for everything.
You have no idea what your spouse does with their money and they won’t tell you
You spouse makes major purchases or financial decisions without your consent
Your spouse lies to you on a regular basis
Your spouse omits details to keep you from knowing the whole story about somethings

Most certainly there is a "scale". So where does a person draw the line? I think those involved in the situation are too emotionally tied into it to make that decision. In my opinion, and in my experience, it is best to seek professional counseling and let someone outside of the situation draw the line.

April 21, 2017

I should note regarding that list of emotionally abusive behaviors that the author stated a person passes the threshold of being abusive when they do five or more of those behaviors on a regular basis. So if they only do some of those behaviors every once and a while, it isn't enough to create a toxic environment.

Here is the quote from Ellen White:

“Do not forsake your post of duty because of the unpleasantness of it. There are many living martyers today who suffer in silence, who trust in God when they are abused with the tongue and who are tantalized, who are hurt and wounded by coarse, harsh denunciations, whose lot seems to be lived to suffer, receiving comfort only from Jesus who is the Source of their strength. Such souls are missionaries.” (Ms 9, 1868)

My first wife was guilty of violating four of those emotionally abusive behaviors on a regular basis. She refused to go to counseling with me. So I found a family counselor and took the kids to counseling with me. After two sessions, my wife went with us because she wanted to know what we were talking about. Eventually she left the home. She was having a mid-life crisis and I couldn't stop her. I don't believe her behavior rose to the level of emotional abuse although it was not healthy and taking the kids to family counseling with me was helpful.

The emotional abusive issue gets into the topic constructive desertion. That appears to have been the case with Abraham's divorce of Hagar. Hagar and Ishmael were causing so much difficulties that God agreed with Sarah that they needed to go. That also seems to be the case with the neglect of the wife addressed in Exodus 21:11. Of course, our denomination does not recognize constructive desertion as being a Biblical grounds for divorce.

April 21, 2017

To be clear on a point where I was not clear: MY request for a listing of men vs. women divorcing was directed not at Shane, but at The Wanderer.

April 21, 2017

It's not an easy solution, what ever the reason for divorce. Adults are important also and and they are sometimes forgotten when it comes to more 'conservative' belief systems. We need to be careful when just talking about the children as the issues can be much broader. Yes, there is a difinate place place for counseling and therapy, although sometimes frowned upon by the more conservative thought, and in the case of christians, prayer, etc. But the bottom line is, in my opinion, what is best for all involved, children first. I do not go along with the idea of staying together because it is a 'missionary project', harm is harm and should be avoided.

Of course God did not design divorce into the life on this world just as He did not desire the many other hurtful things that happen in life. I believe that the stigma of 'divorce' that the church had for so many decades is part of the male head issues. Our viewpoints are formed by just a few verses and are/have been interpreted from an almost male point of view and traditions. I have heard SDA biblical scholars discuss the issue of divorce and flat out say that the traditional view is wrong. Time, place, culture, etc must and should be studied before arriving at cut and dried solutions. Should we try to return to the original plan as God intended, of course but it is not always possible. I don't believe it is the church business unless it is such an open and shut case that it may need to get involved. Why in the world have we made divorce such a high priority when Christ spoke out against so many others 'sins' more often and told us what the real important issue of life were.

April 21, 2017

1 hour ago, CoAspen said:

It's not an easy solution, what ever the reason for divorce. Adults are important also and and they are sometimes forgotten when it comes to more 'conservative' belief systems. We need to be careful when just talking about the children as the issues can be much broader.

Thank you for your contribution to this topic. I do believe that the interest of the children is important because Satan tries especially hard to mess up the lives of children because when a child's life gets messed up it often messes up their entire life. That is especially true during the first 7 years of childhood. I am so grateful that my marriage problems didn't start until my youngest was 9. Both of my children had a functional, Christian home until that time. The adults can always get divorced once the children are grown. When the children themselves are getting abused, there is a point that divorce is in the children's best interest. My position, and what I did myself, was to allow a professional counselor to decided when that threshold had been crossed. As a participant in the home, my view is too impacted by my own emotions to make a realistic evaluation myself.

Quote

I have heard SDA biblical scholars discuss the issue of divorce and flat out say that the traditional view is wrong. Time, place, culture, etc must and should be studied before arriving at cut and dried solutions.

I understand how difficult it is to make changes to the Church Manual. However I have found very few articles about this subject in Adventist publicans while searching online. I would like to see more scholarly articles written in our publications and perhaps even a small book on the matter. There are many members of the church that go through divorce and feel awkward. The pastors may have the right attitude and try to love these members and keep them in the church but when the official church position says something different, it can be hard for the member to feel they are at peace with God.

I do not understand Jesus's words as teaching that adultery is the only grounds for divorce. I understand Him as saying God never intended divorce at all. But then I have to look at the story of Abraham and Hagar. I have to look at the story of Ezra. And I have to use the Bible to interpret the Bible. When I do that, it looks rather simple. God allows divorce because of the hardness of man's heart but it was never part of His original plan. And how should the church deal with a hard heart? It should reach out with grace.

I believe that many of the so-called "conservatives" are resistant to allowing divorce because we are still being influenced by the Catholic church. The Catholic doctrine takes a very strong position against divorce.

What is clearly wrong is to divorce your wife so you can marry someone else. That is what was going on during the days of Malachi and what Christ strictly forbid in Mark 10:11, 12.

April 22, 2017

When the person I was refering too, was asked about publishing research on the subject, he just stated that such would not be accepted by the church. I do not remember the persons name but I believe he had retired from Andrews. He had been invited by a committee to speak at a divorce seminar put together by myself and others. It was a first for the churches in our area and we had a packed, overflowing room. It was quite surprising at the time!

There are somethings that the GC will not allow because of fear that the 'saints' would lose trust/faith/belief in church leadership.

:backtopic:

April 22, 2017

That is part of this topic, sadly. If one goes back to my original post, I quote Jesus from three of the Gospels. Then I do a passage exploration. I do not get into the original language used nor the culture and society for context. I am really just analyzing it on the surface and from that simple analysis, it appears the official church position is not interpreting the verse correctly. So I ask to be shown where I am wrong. What am I missing. Why does 90% of the Protestant churches all interpret the passage so superficially?

This is the issue on that. 90% of Protestants say that Jesus taught adultery is the only grounds for divorce. I don't see that teaching in those verses. What I see is that Jesus said man is not to split up what God has joined. In addition to that He states that a man who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery. The exception clause doesn't give man a reason to divorce his wife - it simply makes the man innocent of adultery. That is, if the woman commits adultery before the divorce, then the man is not guilty of the adultery. That doesn't mean it was OK for him to divorce his wife. It just means he isn't guilty of causing her to commit adultery. In fact, if he hates her for committing adultery, then he is guilty of murder in his heart.

April 22, 2017

13 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

This is just so wrong, in so many ways, and it is dangerous to see it as such. I would class this as a fanatical teaching.

Thank you for participating in this thread. I read the short article you provided but it did not address the texts, taken from the Gospels, which I quoted in the beginning post of this thread. I would like to be shown, from the text, where I am misguided.

The subject of abuse was addressed in the original post during the "passage exploration" dealing with Paul's Commentary found in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16. Some believe that abuse falls under constructive desertion and is included in the Pauline Privilege of abandonment. The issue with abuse is that there is a scale. Not all abuse is the same. Not all abuse is harmful to children. Some is and some isn't. That is why before someone decides to break up a home I suggest they spend some time in counseling and let the counselor draw the line of what is harming the child and what is not. I knew one woman who believed her husband listening to rock music was abusing her children and harming them. Is that enough to break up a home? If the husband listens to rock music, should the Christian wife run down to the courthouse and file divorce papers?

The position I have come to, as I tried to lay out in the original post in this thread is this. (I am more than willing to be corrected and shown the light)

God does not desire divorce in any circumstance. Man should not separate what God has joined together. What does that mean?

If there is abuse, God desires the abusive spouse to repent and stop abusing.

If there is adultery, God desires the adulterous spouse to repent and stop committing adultery.

In the case of Abraham and Hagar, God desired Hagar and Ismael to behave, stop teasing and being emotionally abusive.

God does not ever desire divorce. God desires us to behave and treat each other right.

GOD PERMITS DIVORCE BECAUSE OF HARD HEARTS.

God allows divorce in cases of abuse because someone has a hard heart.

God allows divorce in cases of adultery because someone has a hard heart.

God commanded Abraham to divorce Hagar because Hagar and Ismael had hard hearts.

April 22, 2017

3 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I distinguished in my article what is abuse, what is not.

Forgive me for my lack of communication skills. I don't think we are understanding what the other is asking. I was not asking for a definition of abuse. I was asking to be shown from the language of the text itself, how it is that I am misunderstanding the text. 90% of Protestants understand the text differently than I do. So I understand that I could be wrong. What I am asking is that someone show me, from the text itself, how I am misunderstanding it.

Quote

You have failed to prove that those texts in your article are not telling people in abusive situations that they must stay "because ts God's will."

I don't read the text as saying that Jesus taught one should stay in an abusive relationship. The Adventist church doesn't teach that either. The way I understand the text is that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts (that could be abuse) but that was never part of God's plan. God's plan was that no man should separate what God has joined together. God would rather the abusive person repent and learn how not to be abusive. That wouuld be God's plan. BUT.... (follow the thinking here) Moses allowed divorce because of hard hearts. Therefore if the abusive person has a hard heart and will not repent, divorce is an option. (that is my belief, not the Adventist belief)

Quote

There is nothing to "prove" in your supplied texts that anyone, for any reason, needs to put up with abuse in their home.

What I am trying to understand is why many Protestant, including Adventists, read those passages and say "Adultery is the only grounds for divorce."

I don't read the passage that way. All Jesus is saying (the way I read it) is that if a man's wife is guilty of adultery, than the man that divorces her is not guilty of causing her to commit adultery.

To me, it doesn't say that adultery is the only grounds for divorce. To me, it doesn't even say that adultery is grounds for divorce. Jesus told us to love our enemies and do good to the that use us. He didn't add onto that "unless your wife commits adultery, then you can divorce her."

Divorce, from my understanding, is a result of a hard heart. And I have been divorced twice. My first wife left me with the kids. I divorced my second wife (shortly after we married) because we both had custody of our kids, the kids were teenagers, the house was too small, and we just couldn't handle it. In my second marriage, we could probably both make the argument for emotional abuse. Our home was a circus.

April 24, 2017

In the compilation book "Testimonies On Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce" there are several times that Ellen White wrote that the church should not discipline those who divorced without Biblical grounds, and remarried, if they had repented of the divorce. Furthermore she stated they did not need to break up their second marriage and return to the first wife in order for the church to accept them and use them in a position of influence.

Quote

Sister White did not sympathize with those who took the ground that a person who had separated from a companion on other than Scriptural ground, and married again, that this second marriage must be broken up if they were to be accepted and retained in an SDA church. (page 223)

In this next quote, a man left his wife so he could marry another. Later, both the man and his second wife repented bitterly.

Quote

When the matter was put before Sister White, she did not encourage a separation, nor could she encourage any movement to exclude him from participation in the work of the third angel's message. (page 220)

Some take the position that when Jesus stated if a man divorce his wife and married another, he committed adultery to mean that him and his second wife were continually committing adultery every time they slept together. Some theologians disagree and believe that such a man commits adultery on one occasion, the day he marries his second wife. It is not that he continues to live in adultery during his second marriage. This later view, seems to be the one held by Ellen White.

Quote

It has been my belief for a long time that our brethren make a serious mistake in their efforts to break up families by argueing that in the fulfillment of their vows, made unwisely in most cases, that they are continually, day by day, committing adultery. (Page 221)

Another case, after a man's wife died he married another woman. She became insane and was taken to an asylum. He then married a third woman without divorcing the second wife.

Quote

At various times, individuals where Brother Belden lived undertook to secure his exclusion from the church because he had married without seperation from his wife on the charge of adultery. When appealed to in regard to this matter, Sister White said, "Let them alone" (page 225)

Although Sister White did understand the Bible as teaching that adultery was the only grounds for divorce. She also believed that if a person that divorced without grounds repented, their following marriage should be accepted by the church and they should be allowed in fellowship. This is still an issue with many in the church today.

April 24, 2017

9 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Would you actually go into a court of law and say this line about Satan out to get your children? Guess what that sounds like to a judge? There is no need to draw him, whoever he is, into such an equation, as if to somehow lessen the blame where it actually belongs.

Forgive me if some of my comments got us sidetracked. This thread is about the Biblical position regarding divorce and the church's position on it. I have not been trying to state legal positions to be presented in a court of law. I did successfully fight for custody of my children but did not use religious arguments to do so.

Quote

I find it hard to believe that the latter part of your sentence would predict such doom and gloom for children whose "child hood was messed up." Thats just not how it happens in many cases.

Again, forgive me if I did not state this before. Not all children are impacted the same by divorce (not all adults either). Some children are very resilient and hardly effected at all. Others are devastated and never recovered during their entire lives. Therefore, when discussing the issue, we have to make generalizations based on the statistical data we have. That data tells us that most children are negatively impacted with issues that continue on into their adulthood.

April 26, 2017

On 4/23/2017 at 9:50 PM, Shane said:

In the compilation book "Testimonies On Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce" there are several times that Ellen White wrote that the church should not discipline those who divorced without Biblical grounds, and remarried, if they had repented of the divorce. Furthermore she stated they did not need to break up their second marriage and return to the first wife in order for the church to accept them and use them in a position of influence.

Quote

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, ²and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, ³and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, ⁴then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. Dt 24:1-4.

I always find it extremely amazing just how anxious and quick some people are to push someone into actual sin in their rush to judgment against others who are not sinning, but do not live up to the traditions of men that those judges have chosen to replace God's law in their hearts.

Ellen White often said that the moral law was never done away with, but then on many occasions proved she had never bothered studying the Law of Moses by stating that it is all ritual, not moral. Nevermind that such statements prove she has no understanding of the prophecy of the so-called ritual law which is still in place (Hebrews 9:11-14), but conditions of which must be performed using the blood of Jesus in our body temple on the altar of our heart rather than using the blood of goats in an outward temple. The so called ritual law illustrates prophetically the process by which sin is first covered (atonement) then removed (sanctification), which makes these laws of utmost moral importance. But even if we ignore this fact it still remains a fact that the vast majority of the law of Moses is moral, not ritual. So which of Ellen White's conflicting statements are we to take on this matter?

This divorce law states explicitly that once a man divorces a woman he is never to return to her again. To do so is detestable in the eyes of God and will defile the land (land represents the church, specifically in terms of the place where the nation {church} resides so that they are essentially one and the same.) So in their blind rush to judge others without first determining the will of God and judging themselves as God's law requires, these people referenced in those passages of EGW's writings were trying to force other church members to sin against God and the church. Inciting someone else to sin is a malicious act, thus those people invoke another moral law found in the Laws of Moses in DT 19:15-21, specifically the portion in vs 16 dealing with a malicious witness. This is a very serious matter, because malicious intent makes a witness false even if every fact that witness states is true. Before the accused is judged God judges the witnesses and if they are found to be false, or simply of malicious intent God will do to that witness what the witness is trying to get him to do to the accused. This is one of the places where God states the eye for an eye principle, meaning that if the witness is accusing the other person of a capital crime, the witness also gets the death penalty. It is that serious. Ellen White was wise to tell these people to mind their own business even if she had so little knowledge or understanding of God's law that she could not tell them why they should keep their mouths shut.

April 26, 2017

Shane,

There are always serious problems that come from studying scripture in English or some other translation instead of going to the original languages. There are serious problems that come of studying the NT from a Greek perspective instead of a Hebrew perspective, and it is even worse when you study one of Jesus' discourses on the law without having any real knowledge of the Hebrew law he is explaining, the interpretation of which he is correcting. (Most modern Christian religious and philosophical thought is from a Greek perspective, not a Hebrew perspective and is thus necessarily pagan.) I have seen very few discussions on this subject anywhere that do not run into at least one of these problems and mostly run into all of them. That is certainly true here.

Let's not forget that at the start of this very discourse on God’s law and how it is to be properly interpreted Jesus also said,

Quote

¹⁷“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. ¹⁹Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.²⁰For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

This immediately gets us into serious problems between biblical teaching and the teaching of Jesus vs. standard Christian (SDA included) teaching and thought concerning the law of God.

Are we really so stupid as to think that in the second and third of six laws Jesus discussed immediately after this he would say, “Oh, btw, I am changing this law on my own authority and nothing written by Moses or spoken by me from the top of that mountain 1500 years ago on these matters still applies,”? That is precisely what Christians say every time they hold a discussion on this topic, but that is to be expected because when it comes to Bible study most Christians have the attention span of a kindergartner with ADHD and whine when someone asks them to give something any real thought. You see that all the time on this forum and you see that in this very thread on this forum.

But you see it everywhere, not just on the forums. How many people are willing to sit through more than a 20-25-minute discussion in Sabbath School, or a 20-25-minute sermon in our white churches? In the black churches, you often find one-hour sermons, but unfortunately there is no more substance; they use the same “Baptist” three-point study format, but no more proofs given for each point than what you find in the white sermons; there is just a lot more repetition and yelling.

Face it. We have no attention span, and no willingness to have either the attention span or our intellects challenged, and we will gladly tell you we already have all the answers and God no longer gives revelation, nor will he ever do so again. The prophets are done.

I am going to recommend you read a booklet by Dr. Stephen E. Jones on this subject called The Bible Says: Divorce and Remarriage is not a Sin. All of his books can be read on-line at no charge; most can be downloaded in PDF format, also at no charge and hardcopies can be purchased on his site. This booklet is found at http://gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/the-bible-says-divorce-and-remarriage-is-not-adultery/

The first paragraph says,

Quote

Church opinion has long favored the teaching that remarriage after divorce is adultery, based upon what we believe to be a single mistranslated word in Matthew 5:32 and a few incorrect assumptions. The result? A great many people today who are divorced and remarried are being expelled from their churches. Others are being refused leadership positions or are being plied with a load of guilt for “living in constant adultery." It is tragic, and so very unnecessary. Many times it turns people away from God all together, either in rebellion against what they feel is an injustice in Scripture, or else through discouragement over their own inability to remain single for the rest of their lives.

That is a rather strong statement, but then Dr. Jones proves the point very effectively.

I have spent several hours trying to track down something I read once, which I thought was in this booklet, or perhaps one of Dr. Jones other books, either Creation’s Jubilee or perhaps another one, but I have not been able to locate that information. It could also have been from one of the source books Dr. Jones referenced, but I did not read very much of that source material, so I doubt it.

What I remember, is that Jerome was not always able to make sense of what he was translating, either due to his limitations in understanding the original languages, or because the theology of those passages was a little more difficult. In such cases, he would seek the advice of the Bishop of Rome currently in power when he was working on this translation and would defer to his advice, even though the man knew less about Hebrew and Greek than Jerome did. Thus, many false doctrines crept into portions of the Bible. One of these was the issue of polygamy. In the Hebrew law polyandry is outlawed, but polygamy is specifically allowed in redemption law; it is less clear that this was allowed with a free woman.

There are two types of wives found in scripture, although the church is largely ignorant of this, and through most of its history has treated all wives as bondwomen rather than allow any the rights of a free woman. Under the Romans the civil government outlawed all forms of simultaneous multiple marriage were outlawed, and the church acquiesced in this to the point of slightly altering scripture in the translation of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew into various local languages. Thus 1 Timothy 3:2, 12; and Titus 1:6 all speak of church officials being the husband on one wife, instead of still being married to their first wife as Paul wrote, and as the ancient Hebrew law required of the equivalent Levitical officials.

It is not very clear in the ancient Hebrew law whether a man could have more than one freewoman as a wife, but under redemption law he was allowed to have both a freewoman as his wife, and also have bond women he purchased as his wives. I mention this primarily because Exodus 21 specifically states that if a man entered his term of bondage without a wife and children and his master provided him with a wife (who may later bear him children), whether from his bondwomen or his own daughters, when the bondman’s bond was paid off and he was to be set free, his wife and children were not to go out with him; they had to remain in their master’s house as his daughter and grandchildren.

The idea that these bondservants are actually children of their master is another aspect of the redemption laws the church has always failed (refused?) to understand; it has always considered them as slaves, a class of servant that is entirely and completely different from a bondservant. Israel and Judah were already refusing to make this distinction before the exiles, and the church has never since made any such distinction. I have never made any detailed study of the Greek text to be absolutely certain, but it appears that Paul sometimes used the terms slave and bondservant interchangeably even though he was fully aware of the distinction and could not have taught some of his major theological passages without that awareness. Then again that could be simply a matter of the ignorance of the translators, something that often shows up in every translation ever made.

Anyway, when the bondservant paid off his full bond, if he had no wife and children entering into the time of bondage, he could not leave with his wife and children upon completion of the terms of his bond (loan) because that wife and any children she bore belonged to his master. His only options were mandatory divorce or taking the opening of the ear ceremony, promising to be obedient to his master (adopted father) for the remainder of his life. The continued service of the man is optional, it is not optional for his wife. Either she came into his bondage with him, thus leaves with him, or she was given to him in his bondage and remains in the master’s house, whether he leaves or chooses to remain.

There are very specific prophetic reasons for why things are done in this way, as man and woman are each prophetic symbols of very different things. Ellen White wrote on numerous occasions and using a few different words that the entire Hebrew (Jewish, although that is a meaningless term before the time of the divided kingdom) economy (law, mosaic law and maybe a few other terms) is a prophecy of the plan of salvation. In many of those places she tries to limit the meaning to only the temple rituals, but that is not the entire economy. All the laws given on the mountain top, whether of the 10 Commandments the people allowed themselves to hear directly, or the rest of the law which they demanded God speak only to Moses, are prophecies of some aspect of the plan of salvation. We did not need Ellen White to tell us this because Jesus told us in John 5

Quote

⁴⁵“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. ⁴⁶If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. ⁴⁷But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

This applies to all the words of Moses, even the historical stuff (see Paul’s words in Galatians 4:24. Along with Numbers 12:6-9 this should settle the constant arguments between the literalists and the spiritualizers, but it won’t because each camp loves its doctrine more than it loves truth. Every word God speaks through a prophet is some form of symbolism, dark saying or riddle. Paul confirms this when he says that the marriages of Abraham, and the children born of those marriages are symbolism. He is not saying that they did not exist; but rather he is saying they lived an allegory which we are to study in order to understand the two covenants.

Humans are body, soul and spirit. Due to much of the paganism that permeates Christianity most people do not seem to make any distinction between soul and spirit. We find this problem in SDA proof texts for the state of the dead and this lack of distinction greatly alters the perception of the proof texts, and of the issue itself. Paul speaks of us having two consciousnesses or two “I”s. The one is the new man of the spirit which cannot sin, the second is the old man, which cannot do anything but sin. These are soul and spirit. In spiritual terms the soul is feminine and the spirit is masculine, and this symbolism is the reason for different roles for man and woman in the law.

Later Paul says there is no difference between man (spirit) and woman (soul), between Jew (believer) and Greek (unbeliever) not because the spiritual differences have now been abandoned, but because the types are no longer bound to those physical roles because we are now beginning to see and understand spiritual things. Except that a lot of us don’t which is why the Corinthians were still counselled in the first epistle to continue in these shadow roles. That which pertains to the soul (woman) is never to be mixed with those things pertaining to a spirit (man) (Dt 22:5). The clothing of the “man” is defined in Revelation 19:8 as the righteousness of the saints. Their righteousness comes from God’s unchangeable law so in a sense we can say the clothing is their “doctrines”. So when Paul tells us there is no difference between men and women he is speaking from the same perspective from which he speaks in Colossians 2:17, 18 where he tells us the Sabbaths are shadows and the reality is found in the anointing (of the Holy Spirit which opens our eyes to spiritual realities) here translated as “in Christ” because Christians forget the meaning of that word and have no understanding of what that word means, or how the law of God shows us entering that anointing ourselves, to eventually become the sons of God.

All of these things are types and shadows of the reality to come, and this is not just a New Testament idea, but is found in the Old Testament in a great many places, but most clearly shown in the law of Zelophehad’s daughters in Numbers 27. In this law, we find that women have inheritance rights. Moreover, because this is about perpetuating her father’s name in Israel it means when she marries her husband she does not give up her family name and take her husband’s; instead, he gives up his family name and takes hers! Look at that again! Because this is about perpetuating her father’s name in Israel, her husband MUST take her family name, and instead of her coming under his covering, he gives up his inheritance and comes under HER covering and HER name.

Christians, because they have entirely rejected the law of God, have absolutely no understanding of the laws of covering and what they mean, even though they base this rejection of the law on the fact that they are under the covering of Jesus’s sacrifice. Thus, the meaning of this statement does not have near the impact on you that it does on me, but you should begin to see the importance of this on every other matter of women’s rights in the church and before God’s law. Even in Old Testament times, according to God’s law, though not the traditions of men, women had all the same rights and responsibilities that men have. I know it won’t because men (and women) always seek to uphold their traditions as law, no matter how clearly the law contradicts their traditions, but this alone should end all question as to whether women have the right to file for divorce. It is not absolutely clear that a bondwoman would have that right, but a freewoman certainly does.

Strangely enough, in the allegory in Galatians 4 is also a New Testament commandment that we divorce one of these two wives. She cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, and if we choose that wife as our mother, we also cannot inherit, yet the vast majority of denominations have either chosen to be divorced from both wives, or to be divorced from Sarah and remain in the bondage of the Old Covenant. Their lip service to living by faith means nothing when all the rest of the words coming from their mouths and all their actions prove they are in one of these other two camps.

But I digress. We have in this story an example where God specifically calls for a divorce in New Testament times. It is true that this is “only prophetic”, but if you make that distinction you only prove that you have chosen one of the other two camps: You are a child of Hagar and the Old Covenant legalism, or a non-believer. God’s law is law, whether we apply it only in the 3D types and shadows or in the greater reality (Col 2:17) or prophetic point of view that Jesus taught in the sermon on the mount. That there is a New Testament call for divorce at all, calls into question much of what Christians teach regarding divorce. It does not matter whether it is in the prophetic reality of things we cannot see or only see dimly (1 Cor 13:12) depending on our level of spiritual maturity, or in the 3D world which we call reality but Paul calls shadows, and quantum physicists call a holographic projection

As I pointed out earlier the Romans had banned having multiple wives and the church, which agreed with this practice, intentionally altered translations of scripture to “show” that God was in agreement with Roman law on this matter. It is likely something similar happened with divorce, and the passage in question here was intentionally mistranslated to come into line with church teaching rather than to present Jesus’ actual word on the matter.

There are many such intentional mistranslations in scripture. Some were corrected when the KJV was created and published but most were not. There are two things to remember here. Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were largely unavailable and the languages unknown in the western church after the schism. However, when the Ottomans overthrew Constantinople and displaced the eastern church many scholars went west with their manuscripts; thus, the study of Greek and Hebrew were new in the west and there were many holes in the translators’ knowledge.

Secondly, King James II was a Catholic. The throne of England has not been held exclusively in Protestant hands ever since Henry VIII left the Catholic church because the Pope would not sanction his divorce and remarriage. His daughter, Elizabeth I, was also Anglican, but upon her death the throne returned to a Catholic monarch who authorized a Catholic translation of scripture. Many of the mistranslations Jerome put into the Vulgate, intentionally or not, were left in place, some because they did not have adequate knowledge to make corrections and others because they simply were not going to make changes to official church doctrine. (Anglican doctrine and practice is not significantly different from Catholic doctrine and practice, and certainly on the one issue that caused the break between the two, divorce, Catholic scholars and monarchs are not going to supply the Anglicans with proof that Henry was “justified” in his actions.)

To me, the most ironic part of all this is the irrational SDA hatred of Catholics and all things Catholic. We forget that the vast majority of all true doctrines are a part of “Catholic” doctrine, and the number of various doctrines that separate any one Christian denomination from any other Christian denomination are very few. There was only one official denomination for nearly 1000 years and it was another 500 years before another major offshoot was established. The first of these breaks was about centralized authority. It took about 300 - 400 years from the time the Bishop of Rome first attempted to exert authority over the bishops of other cities until Boniface III finally consolidated papal power and ended the rebellion of other local bishops in 606 AD. Yet this did not entirely end the matter because the Bishops of Constantinople and Rome continued this fight between themselves until the Great Schism in 1054.

Later when the Protestant Reformation began making major doctrinal corrections they tended to happen one at a time and to cause great divisions with the correction of only a very few doctrines. Thus, all denominations today, SDAs included, still contain a great many paganisms which they refuse to correct. When someone does come along to say, “Hey, there is a problem here; the Bible says this, but we do that,” there is always some idiot accusing the person calling us back to the Bible of introducing and teaching Catholic doctrine, when what is being taught is biblical stuff the “Catholics” have been teaching against for1500 - 1800 years. This is very commonly their excuse for their refusal to do a deep study of the scriptures provided. If it is a “Catholic” doctrine, or at the least, not something provided by an approved SDA theologian, there is no need for them to examine the matter at all. As I said, less attention span than a kindergartner with ADHD.

Every denomination teaches a number of false doctrines. Most of these false doctrines came with them out of Catholicism, either directly or through the other denominations these new ones came out of; although some of these false doctrines come as a direct result of misinterpretation of the “new” revelation from God that eventually started the new denomination. Almost any time someone questions one of these false doctrines with sound biblical teaching the “faithful” start making accusations that what is being taught are Catholic doctrines, and refuse to even look at the texts provided. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

The Purpose of Inquiry sections of your original post ends with you saying,

Quote

I have more questions than answers. The deeper I dig into this study the less clear the issue becomes. I am corresponding with some Adventist leaders about it but I do find many are not interested in digging deep into it. The official church position stated in our Church Manual seems (to me) to be arrived at from a superficial reading of the Scriptures. I am willing to be shown were I am in error on that but that hasn't happened yet.

Any true study of any matter worth pursuing will always leave you with more questions than answers. This is how God leads us deeper into our knowledge of him. Generally, only the earliest inquiries result in the confusion you describe, and that almost always this confusion is more a matter of trying to reconcile the evidence you discover with the lies you have always been told were absolute and incontrovertible truth. Once you cast down this particular idol of the heart (Ezekiel 14:1-11) and let the evidence speak for itself the confusion will generally start clearing up rather quickly. Once that happens you will still usually end up with more questions than answers, but those questions will simply be a matter of being propelled forward into God’s word, which is not all in scripture, but scripture will be your primary guide, and into a much greater understanding.

I have already mentioned how Ellen White told us many times that the entire Hebrew economy is a prophecy of the plan of salvation. Implicit in any such statement is a commandment to do a thorough study of that prophecy. Tell me something; have you seen any such study anywhere in the writings of Ellen White? Have you seen any such studies from any SDA theologian? The fact of the matter is that no such study exists anywhere in SDA literature, and most SDAs are as fearful of any study of any portion of the law as any other Christian is. Because the commandment is implicit and not explicit, as far as any of them are concerned they are not disobeying God’s command because he did not actually make a command. Get real, people.

This is not the only such implicit command which has been ignored. Great Controversy p. 399 says,

Quote

These types were fulfilled, not only as to the event, but as to the time. On the fourteenth day of the first Jewish month, the very day and month on which, for fifteen long centuries, the passover lamb had been slain, Christ, having eaten the passover with his disciples, instituted that feast which was to commemorate his own death as “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” That same night he was taken by wicked hands, to be crucified and slain. And as the antitype of the wave-sheaf, our Lord was raised from the dead on the third day, “the first-fruits of them that slept,” [1 Corinthians 15:20.] a sample of all the resurrected just, whose “vile body” shall be changed, and “fashioned like unto his glorious body.” [Philippians 3:21.]

In like manner, the types which relate to the second advent must be fulfilled at the time pointed out in the symbolic service. Under the Mosaic system, the cleansing of the sanctuary, or the great day of atonement, occurred on the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month, [Leviticus 16:29-34.] when the high priest, having made an atonement for all Israel, and thus removed their sins from the sanctuary, came forth and blessed the people. So it was believed that Christ, our great High Priest, would appear to purify the earth by the destruction of sin and sinners, and to bless his waiting people with immortality. The tenth day of the seventh month, the great day of atonement, the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary, which in the year 1844 fell upon the 22d of October, was regarded as the time of the Lord’s coming. This was in harmony with the proofs already presented that the 2300 days would terminate in the autumn, and the conclusion seemed irresistible.

This is all but an explicit statement that the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment cannot be true. As you can see in the second paragraph she acknowledged the prophetic principle in the thesis statement, then immediately proved she either had no understanding of what that thesis meant, or that she preferred to be a church prophet, upholding their unbiblical teaching rather than be God’s prophet, going to scripture and seeking correct interpretation of those prophecies. I do not make this statement to start controversy of any sort (although I am aware such controversy cannot be avoided when the statement is made publicly in the presence of the “faithful”), but only to make a point about prophecy, obedience and the willingness of our leadership to become involved in any form of in-depth study.

Even after writing these words which so clearly show that that this doctrine cannot be true because the current doctrine cannot fulfill the Day of Atonement on a single day and does not address Trumpets and Tabernacles at all. Nor is this writing, based on an 1863 vision, the first time God addressed this matter with her. She used two of the four spring feasts to make her point. The week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread was not mentioned at all, nor was Pentecost (Shavuot, The Feast of Weeks). Pentecost was fulfilled to the day as well, and was fulfilled by the tongues of fire falling on the 120 in the upper room, empowering them to do the next great work in God’s ministry to earth.

I don’t know of any theories from anyone as to how Jesus fulfilled the Feast of Unleavened Bread nor how it is fulfilled corporately in the church, but I do understand how it is fulfilled on the individual. However, I know that because the other three feasts had a specific fulfillment in Jesus’ death and resurrection there is also some kind of fulfillment for Unleavened Bread in this as well.

The Autumn feasts include the Feast of Trumpets, which the Jewish Rabbis and most Christians are in agreement represents the resurrection of the dead. I never saw anything about this feast in my SDA education, but I am told Miller said it represented the last cry. If this is true it is yet another matter where he violated his own 13^th rule of prophetic interpretation.

There is also nothing in SDA doctrine about the Feast of Tabernacles (ingathering), except for the annual attempt to raise money from people who are not Adventists. This has absolutely nothing to do with what that feast is about and comes closer to a fulfillment of Ezekiel 34 than Leviticus 23:33-43. Ellen White’s first vision in November or December of 1844 dealt very specifically with this feast and its fulfillment, but you have to know something about the feast and know that it is prophecy of events dealing with the second coming to know this. The followers of Miller had no clue, and Ellen White never looked for one even though God called this matter to her attention multiple times starting with this vision. I will excuse her in small measure for not getting this in 1844, but there was no excuse for her to continue missing this after 1863. That statement is clear enough. All three autumn feasts have to be included in your doctrine or it is flawed. All three autumn feasts must be fulfilled in the same year or your doctrine is absolutely false.

Ellen White’s advice to the church as they looked more and more to her and less and less to scripture for answers and interpretations was,

Quote

Don't you quote Sister White. I don't want you ever to quote Sister White until you get your vantage ground where you know where you are. Quote the Bible. Talk the Bible. It is full of meat, full of fatness. Carry it right out in your life, and you will know more Bible than you know now. (Spaulding-Magan Collection, p. 174).

The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God's Word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word.... Let all prove the positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim as truth from the revealed Word of God. (Evangelism, p. 256)

The Bible is our rule of faith and doctrine. (Gospel Workers, p. 249

Unfortunately, Ellen White did not follow this advice herself, and God seldom explicitly commanded her to do so. These three statements are the only explicit commands to this effect that I could find in her writings (I am sure I have read others but could not find them in my searches), and since they are general statements, not specific commands in specific instances no one, Ellen White included, thought to actually apply this advice to much of anything. If they liked the theory they had already been presented they did not bother to check scriptures to see that the theories fit, even when God became more and more explicit over time that they had very definite problems in the interpretation they were teaching. Do you really expect their spiritual children to be any different? The doctrine concerning divorce may be a less important and less emotional matter than the 2300 Evenings and Mornings and the Investigative Judgment explanation they came up with when they could no longer avoid admitting that their initial interpretation of the 2300 was false, but don’t expect them to deal with divorce any differently.

I said, there were no SDA theologians who actually looked at the law as prophecy. There may have been one, but since I have never read any of his stuff I cannot say for sure that he did so. All I know of his work is the hearsay from my classmates and professors in the late 1970’s and into the 1980’s in the aftermath of the Glacier View Conference when his 1000 page treatise questioning the interpretation of the 2300 days prophecy was reviewed for 3 days at Glacier View Ranch. Really? Three days to thoroughly study a 1000 page treatise, and based on that information possibly officially reject Miller’s interpretation of the 2300-day prophecy (which btw is 2300 evenings and mornings – individual daily burnt offerings, not days. This also is a mistranslation of a single verse in Daniel 8 in the KJV, and the second place in the chapter where this same phrase appears it is properly translated. Miller messed up again, both not catching this mistranslation, nor studying the previous fulfillment of this prophecy in 168-165 BC when the altar of burnt offering was removed from the temple for 1190 days which does not quite fits the 2300 Evening and Mornings, and the statue of Zeus stood in its place for 1150 days, which precisely matches the 2300 Evenings and Mornings. By refusing to look at this previous fulfillment of this prophecy Miller again violates his own Rule 13 of prophetic interpretation.)

These people have no interest in deep study of anything, and when they do they fail the first rule taught to writers, scientists and other researchers: Don’t become so enamored with your own ideas and theories that you fail to let the facts speak for themselves. When they cannot avoid having to study something they will only go through the motions. As if three days would be enough especially when many of the delegates had never read the paper and were telling their friends ahead of time that they were voting against Dr. Ford. Martin Luther got better treatment in his trial.

I don’t care if you believe the 2300 Days prophecy or not, the Investigative Judgment prophecy or not. God is in charge of whether your eyes are open to the truth or if you are still asleep. The fact of the matter is that all of us suffer from blindness in part (Romans 11:25), and when God places the blinders on someone only God can remove those blinders. We can, however, make ourselves morally responsible for someone else’s continued sin if we press the issue once the first warning is given (Ezekiel 3:16-21, 33:1-20 and 1 Corinthians 8:4-13). Either it is time for God to remove their blindness or it is not. If they do not respond to the word God has told you to give them the spirit is not yet leading them and you are not to press the issue, so I won’t. But this lack of spirit and continued blindness, or sleep or ADHD or whatever other metaphor for the spiritual condition is used means that when you go to them for answers you will never find anything resembling deep study.

You are largely on your own on this matter and you should not be surprised by this. The denominational leaders made their opinions and lack of willingness to seek truth very plain long ago. They would not listen to Ellen White in 1888, leading her to ask God if she should leave the denomination. Like the priests and teachers in Jesus day they are blind guides claiming to be sighted and thus will be judged for sin as if they were sighted (John 9:40, 41,) and you will have to go out into the wilderness for your healing and guidance (Mark 8:22-26 where the village/city is a denomination and a place of blindness; therefore, Jesus told the healed man not to return to the village.)

In the wilderness, you are led directly by God in the pillar of cloud (witnesses – Heb 12:1) and fire (Dt 33:2). Things are considerably easier when he sends you a witness to guide you, but he very often wants you to learn things yourself directly from him and his word. This very often takes much, much longer, even years sometimes, before he finally reveals the meaning of some passage to you. In the meantime, he wants you spending much time meditating on those laws and how they might apply in the real world (Dt 6:4-9, Joshua 1:7-9).

I wish you luck in dealing with this matter, but the likelihood of getting any real meaningful discussion from any denominational leadership is almost nil if that really is your goal. You need to be seeking information on this matter for yourself, and you need to be directly in scripture, and frequently searching in the original languages with good lexicons at your side. You do not need to visit the sins of the fathers on yourself by insisting that they could not possibly be mistaken in their interpretations so that you must force the evidence you find to fit the doctrines they taught you long ago rather than let the evidence speak for itself.

Deuteronomy 13 says,

Quote

13 “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, ²and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ ³you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. ⁴You shall follow the Lord your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. ⁵But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death (brought to repentance and submission to God, i.e. second death), because he has counseled rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you.

⁶“If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods’ (whom neither you nor your fathers have known, ⁷of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end), ⁸you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. ⁹But you shall surely kill (bring to repentance and submission to God, i.e. second death) him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. ¹⁰So you shall stone (teach the law of God) him to death (repentance) because he has sought to seduce you from the Lord your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. ¹¹Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such a wicked thing among you.

You cannot stone someone to death (teach them the law until they repent) unless you already know that law for yourself. You cannot discern whether the prophet is telling the truth unless you already know God’s law, and yet are still willing to search scripture to see if the new revelation will still fit within the framework of God’s law (Acts 17:11).

Stephen Bohr once chastised me for refusing to take Ellen White’s word on a matter when he was specifically using it to refute a point in scripture with which neither he nor Ellen White agrees. There are many such and any Adventists who claims otherwise is only proving themselves ignorant or intentionally blind. Strong words, I know, but very true.

Dr. Bohr told me I should know better because I was raised “in the church.” I told him he should know better because he is the one with a Doctorate degree in theology and supposedly knows the scripture well. At the time I had not searched out the statements from Ellen White quoted above about the Bible being our standard of truth and her never being used as such, but I did quote Dt 13 to him and then pointed him back to the scripture in question. His response was, “My God would never do that.”

Yes, very true. His God would not do that, but then his god is not the God of the Bible; his god(dess) died July 16, 1915 in St. Helena, California. She is buried in Battle Creek, Michigan and I visited her grave last summer. Or maybe she is not really his god(dess) because, for all her human faults, she had the sense to tell her followers, “I don't want you ever to quote Sister White until you get your vantage ground where you know where you are. Quote the Bible. Talk the Bible,” and he refused to follow that counsel. She definitely was not his god(dess) in this matter. He followed his own rebellious heart as we all so often do. So, let’s not be going there again. You need to be in scripture with this matter, and all others, using her writings only for informational purposes, and never to determine doctrinal truth, most especially where she is not in agreement with scripture.

Good luck in your search for the heart of God in the matter of divorce.

April 26, 2017

There is an alternative interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 which comes from the writings of Joesephus and are found in the SDA Bible Commentary Volume 1 page 1037. The passage actually is written to give the divorced woman a right to remarry. The reason her first husband was forbidden to take her back is because if there was the possibility of reconciliation with him, she would have a harder time finding someone else to marry her. Only when the law forbid previous husbands from marrying a woman they had divorced, would she be truly free to remarry. Otherwise, other men may worry that a previous husband would come and lay claim to her. Understood as such, these verses applied to the theocracy of Israel and as such were civil and not moral laws. When the Jews became subjects of another government (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, etc) they would be obligated to follow the civil laws of those authorities. "The written counsel of Moses for the people of his day is to be interpreted against the background of his day, not of ours, and ever with the divine ideal in view." (ibid p. 1038)

April 26, 2017

Myron, I copied your post above. It consisted of:

* 15 pages in length--Yes, some spaces, if removed, could have shortened it.

* 509 lines of text.

* 73 paragraphs.

* 6,798 words--I have written magazine articles where the Editor limited such to 2,000 to 2,500 words. Your piece is 2.5 times as much.

* 31, 597 separate letters.

Many will disagree with some of what you have written. But, few will probably attempt to challenge you in writing due to the massive nature of your post.

Again, due to the massive nature of your post, the number of people who are likely to read it entirely is probably very limited.

In you post you have hit upon so many separate issues that most will probably not want to spend the time to untangle them in order to address them.

April 26, 2017

Shane,

I don't know much about all that nor do I care much about all that because the law is always first and foremost prophecy of the plan of salvation, is to be studied from that perspective. Under the New Covenant the carnal (the word means fleshly, not sinful as my SDA teachers made sure I believed at a very young age) form of the law has very little to no real meaning. It remains to be a teacher of God's real law to those who cannot yet see spiritually, and a guide to those who can only see very dimly, thus, at times, God has made me very responsible for keeping some of his laws in their carnal form (at least partially with some of the feast days) until such time as my spiritual understanding of those parts is clarified.

Paul says, "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual (Gr carnal and that is how most translate it), sold as a slave to sin," Romans 7:14. This is in the middle of a very long discourse on sin and the law talking about how the law shows us what sin is, how we are not held fully responsible for our sins where we do not know what the law says, how even then we are not fully responsible for our sins for a number of other reasons including the blindness in part God has imposed on all of us, and most importantly how we are not fully responsible for our sins because Jesus has already paid the full penalty for those sins. Yet, Paul still holds us responsible for those sins because it is a sin to keep sinning so that grace (forgiveness [over-simplified but adequate for this discussion]) may abound. So I am not going to insist that the carnal form of the law has no meaning to us anymore as so many insist is the case.

However, the spiritual meaning and application is much more important. Understanding the meaning of laws is not terribly important under the Old Covenant. That is a covenant of obedience. Understanding is important to the New Covenant, which is a covenant of the heart. Yet Adventists and most other Christians are either Old Covenant believers, acknowledging the law and working hard to obey it according to their own understanding, which is limited or non-existent, or are non-believers, fully rejecting the law as having any application under the New Covenant, which proves they have never read the New Covenant, only sought to justify their sin themselves with fig leaves.

When someone brings themselves under the law by the Old Covenant, which everyone else in this discussion has done here, and as Adventists do in a large number of other ways, including our health laws and especially our Sabbath teachings, we invoke Galatians 5.

Quote

²Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. ³Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. ⁴You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. ⁵For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope.⁶For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

The way we teach those things mentioned above and many other things obligates us to keep the entire law in an Old Covenant form, which we refuse to do, and which separates us from God. Thus when Ellen White was questioned by those seeking to force others to obey their own misconceptions or outright sins in this matter she told them MYOB as the scriptures demanded of her. I just wish she had bothered studying the scriptures in enough depth that she could begin to enter the New Covenant and explain why they were to butt out.

The explanation given by Josephus looks good but it is not a biblical explanation. Quite frankly I have no idea whether there is a biblical explanation that applies to the carnal form of this law or not, but I am aware of centuries of rabbinical debate on the spiritual application of this law because it essentially calls the prophecies of the restoration of Israel false unless the Messiah dies first. Until Paul came along no rabbi could understand how this would work.

Here is the problem. There are many biblical prophecies and passages that speak of Israel's divorce from God at the time of her exile (Northern Kingdom). Mostly SDAs (and other Christians ignore this language because mostly God does not call it a divorce, but Jeremiah 3:8 blows this self-delusional fantasy to bits. "I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery." Oops. But then we come up with the excuse that, well this is prophetic symbolism so it really does not matter. Really? The law is spiritual (Roman 7:14) and the carnal application of it is only shadows of things to come, but those spiritual things to come are the reality (Col 2:17, 18). So, well, where does that argument get us? God's law doesn't matter in the things that are real? Didn't Paul just tell us that it is in the things that are only shadows where that law does not matter?

So we are still fighting God and his law no matter how we stick our feet in our mouths or how deeply. If we keep going there we obligate ourselves to keep the entire law in its carnal form AND we remove ourselves from grace in so doing. That is the true salvation issue here.

One of the Dr.s Neal at Union College told our class on the prophecy of Ezekiel that this prophecy was conditional and that once Israel was exiled they could no longer fulfill it. What is the big problem with that statement? Ezekiel's visions were given to him about 120 years AFTER Israel was divorced and sent into captivity. Based on that, the replacement theology we were subsequently taught is, therefore, invalidated. Adventist replacement theology differs in many key ways from that of others, but is no more valid. Chapter 36 promises Israel that she will be regathered and reunited with Judah. Moreover, Jeremiah 18-19 prophesies at about the same time that Judah will be destroyed, never to be rebuilt as its own nation again! (Israel will be reformed by the potter and will reemerge in a different form.) How do you bring these two prophecies together? Judah is destroyed by the reunification and will only be one tribe in Israel again. Ezekiel 22 also speaks of this from the perspective of God having taken two sisters as his brides, just as Jeremiah 8 did. All of these things prophesy about God remarrying Israel, which Deuteronomy 24 very specifically forbids, so the rabbis constantly argue about how this can be done.

This is the real importance of that law, and it prophesies of the means by which Messiah HAD to fulfill this prophecy, although none of the rabbis were willing to see it before Jesus came and died on the cross, and only Paul explains how it happens in Romans 7

Quote

Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? ²For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. ³So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

In the same way the man (God) is also released from his obligation to the law where this woman (Israel) is concerned.

I really don't know, nor do I much care, if or how any of this applies in the carnal form of this law. Obviously a man is not going to die so that he can legally remarry the woman he previously divorced, and just as obviously the people in Ellen Whites day, and in other denominations today, who try to force someone to return to their previous spouse have no clue of this aspect of God's law, nor do they care.

Yet this is one of those laws God so frequently, if only implicitly, commanded Ellen White and through her, the rest of us, to study and to understand from the prophetic point of view. If you are still going to try to justify this law and understand it from carnal reasoning that is fine with me, but you will still have to find biblical, not historical or social reasons for it, or the explanation will have nothing to do with God's law and understanding; it will simply be one more tradition of men.

April 26, 2017

39 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Myron, I copied your post above. It consisted of:

* 15 pages in length--Yes, some spaces, if removed, could have shortened it.

* 509 lines of text.

* 73 paragraphs.

* 6,798 words--I have written magazine articles where the Editor limited such to 2,000 to 2,500 words. Your piece is 2.5 times as much.

* 31, 597 separate letters.

Many will disagree with some of what you have written. But, few will probably attempt to challenge you in writing due to the massive nature of your post.

Again, due to the massive nature of your post, the number of people who are likely to read it entirely is probably very limited.

In you post you have hit upon so many separate issues that most will probably not want to spend the time to untangle them in order to address them.

Gregory,

To use a phrase that was quite popular among my academy friends, and which I am sure you will turn back on me for some of what was in that post, What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

Shane's original post was bemoaning the shallow level of study and discussion he has been able to find on this matter. After providing him with someone else's detailed study as a starting point for any further detailed study in the future I chose to spend the rest of the discussion detailing for him from denominational history why he will not be getting any more than a shallow discussion of this or any other matter here. Furthermore, while I chose to post this publicly rather than send it to him privately the target audience for the shallowness discussion is him, and mostly only him, although I rather expected you to chime in again and kind of hoped you would since you have been a great cheerleader for the shallow study contingent. I know that is not what you call it, but be honest with yourself for a few minutes, ok?

I am well aware that this is not an Adventist problem but is a people problem. Two thousand years of Christian history and 1500 years of Israelite history before that are plenty of proof that the church has struggled from this problem from the very beginning and we will not be giving it up any time soon. As for your post, it is nearly identical to you wrote me maybe 3 years ago, and my answer to it will be pretty much the same as three years ago, although some details will be different.

I am not here to address any studies to the spiritual ADHD crowd. Yes, I know that is kind of a disparaging term, but it is also a rather effective shorthand, especially when speaking to a clinical counselor. I have written many times, probably every thread I have been involved in, concerning Ezekiel 14:1-11, so I did not take the time to look at it in any depth with Shane. You seem to have never looked at it or studied it. It speaks of the idols of the heart people put before their faces when they go to a prophet to consult with God. The passage does not explicitly define these idols, but it makes it relatively clear they are preconceived ideas. The prophet, and by extension the teacher which is my calling, is expected to be able to discern the idols of the heart of those consulting with them, and if they are not willing to set those idols aside, to keep their mouths shut. That is not exactly easy to do when answering questions on a forum such as this, but Shane, in his way was bemoaning the problem of idols of the heart and the level of shallowness they bring to the answers he has been finding. Under that circumstance I am certainly not going to cater to those idols, and I am not addressing the people that require me to (except for you.)

Hebrews 5:11-6:3 says,

Quote

¹¹We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. ¹²In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! ¹³Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. ¹⁴But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

6 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God,²instruction about cleansing rites, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. ³And God permitting,we will do so.

The milk crowd needs to have things broken down and simplified for them. This is very counterproductive to the meat crowd. Isaiah 28 also speaks to this directly. The church points to verse 10 as being absolute proof that the milk method is God's ideal method, but they do this without reading that verse in context, and even when forced to do so they refuse to admit that God is ridiculing them for not only inappropriately using child's methods to teach adults, but feeding them vomit instead of milk. If you are a baby bird, the vomit from a mother bird's gullet is good for them. Even for baby humans the vomit of their parents is detestable. Read the passage.

Quote

⁷And these also stagger from wine
    and reel from beer:
Priests and prophets stagger from beer
    and are befuddled with wine;
they reel from beer,
    they stagger when seeing visions,
    they stumble when rendering decisions.
⁸All the tables are covered with vomit
    and there is not a spot without filth.

⁹“Who is it he is trying to teach?
    To whom is he explaining his message?
To children weaned from their milk,
    to those just taken from the breast?
¹⁰For it is:
    Do this, do that,
    a rule for this, a rule for that;
    a little here, a little there.”

¹¹Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
    God will speak to this people,
¹²to whom he said,
    “This is the resting place, let the weary rest”;
and, “This is the place of repose”—
    but they would not listen.
¹³So then, the word of the Lord to them will become:
    Do this, do that,
    a rule for this, a rule for that;
    a little here, a little there—
so that as they go they will fall backward;
    they will be injured and snared and captured.

The little by little method is how you teach toddlers; it is very appropriate for them although the vomit presents a problem. But as the child grows this method is seriously problematic and holds them back. It turns God's word to them into a snare that keeps them from moving forward and growing in the knowledge of God, and it captures them in a cursed condition.

Verse 11 tells us that because of this curse we will face the worst of the four sore judgments of Ezekiel 14:21, captivity to the beast system.

Quote

For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: How much worse will it be when I send against Jerusalem my four dreadful judgments—sword and famine and wild beasts and plague—to kill its men and their animals!

Compare this with the final curse for disobedience found in Dt 28:48 and Jeremiah 28:13, 14

Since we are supposed to be calling people out of the beast system, why are you insisting that I do one of the very things that specifically causes (and caters to) our rebellion and thus captivity to that system?

I know I am asking a lot of anyone who cares to study what I have to say in these long posts. However, cherry picking and not following complex ideas through to their conclusion are big problems in this society. Most people are not willing to look at the big picture in any circumstance, much less understand it in any detail. When I was teaching, my students often told me not to take any time to help them understand something. Just tell us what is going to be on the test so we can start memorizing it. I always refused. I know educational psychology is not your area of expertise, but in your training I am sure you picked up enough of it due to the overlap in educational and developmental that you should have some understanding of why in God's educational law the beast is unclean if it does not chew the cud. At least you will if you can get past the idol of the heart that prevents Adventists from seeing that these are not simply food laws and you start meditating so that the food you give to others has a chance of being clean.

For this reason I am not expecting anyone to necessarily take all of this in at a single sitting, but I am also not going to break it up in such a way that enables them to think of it as a little self-contained less that has nothing to do with the very next verse either. Maybe a happy medium is to start using section headers, which is something I have considered, but did not feel led to do in this instance.

Let's start acting and studying like adults, not insisting on keeping people under the curse of standard church and Babylonian teaching. Georgie forced that experiment on the entire nation with No Child Left Behind, and as a result even more children were left behind. Chew this cud for a little while and then get back to me.

April 26, 2017

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Many will disagree with some of what you have written. But, few will probably attempt to challenge you in writing due to the massive nature of your post.

Again, due to the massive nature of your post, the number of people who are likely to read it entirely is probably very limited.

In you post you have hit upon so many separate issues that most will probably not want to spend the time to untangle them in order to address them.

Gregory,

As noted in the previous post I am not writing to the many here. I am well aware that the nature of the supporting material provided, most of which, in the eyes of the casual reader, appears entirely irrelevant to the point I was making, will automatically cause 99% of the readers on this or any other SDA site to stop reading immediately. Therefore, it is clear that I am not addressing them. Nor am I questioning the 2300 Evenings and Mornings, the Investigative Judgment. I am also not questioning Ellen White and her gifts which very definitely did come from God, but according to God's word does not work as Adventists teach (tell us what to believe and we will believe it; don't ask us to hear God's voice for ourselves -- so God places us in a curse and caters to the desires that keep us under that curse.) I have no interest in what the many have to say because they have next to nothing of real value to add to any discussion, which was Shane' complaint against the "priests and prophets" he has already consulted; if he cannot get a good answer from them how is he going to get a good answer from the children who are eating the vomit those priests and prophets place on the table and nothing else? Therefore, since the likelihood that I will get any valid answers at all to the questions raised here are slim and none, and I am not willing to waste my time or God's defending myself or the word of God (Titus 3:9)

For this reason, the massive nature of the post is a good thing. This is not the thread in which to answer the questions they will have as a result of my post, and I will not discuss this matter with them here or anywhere else anyway unless they happen to show that they are willing to challenge the idols of their hearts on these matters. The whole point of those issues was to demonstrate to Shane that these people will not have any of their idols of the heart challenged, no matter how easy it is to raise reasonable doubt, not to question his, or anyone else's beliefs in those things.

As I said we all suffer from idols of the heart. We also all have difficulty looking at ourselves and seeing our own idols, so that you see mine more clearly than I do, and I see yours more clearly than you do. On that basis discussion of these things with other people is always of great benefit, but only if both of us are willing to have our idols challenged. It is of no benefit when we only discuss these things with others who share the same strong delusion God has sent on us, and will only listen to those who please our itching ears. That is 99% of the people that stay on these forums. With them, not only is there no benefit to having discussions with them; it is a violation of Gods law to engage in extended discussion with them.

Although it was not my intent to raise any of those points for discussion and don't care in the least if you bother unpacking them or not, I am willing to discuss them with you, or Shane or any other open minded person who will actually examine evidence (not simply offer other evidence without reading the scriptures provided as normally happens here) if you move that discussion to another thread or address me privately. Since I am not here to shake anyone's faith in these things I would actually prefer private discussions, but the since the answers will be long and thus not of any real interest to the shallow-minded, I am willing for them to be public.

For your benefit, here is a short bit about me. It is clear from my post that I no longer believe in Miller's interpretation of the 2300 Evenings and Mornings. When Dr. Ford presented his arguments against these things I was completely against him, but had the integrity to admit I was in no way justified in judging him because I had not read a word of anything he wrote. When God started calling me to study these things for myself 16 years ago I had no access to Ford's writings due to my personal situation which I will only discuss privately, but based on what I knew from past friends and teachers I could tell that while he was right about these doctrines being bad interpretation of scripture, he did not appear to match up with scripture on many of his conclusions, most especially concerning Mrs. White.

As you can tell from my posts I do not agree with her on a great many things either, but since I learned in my studies how God defines prophets and prophecy, and most especially what a "false" prophet is, I don't fall into the errors he and the SDAs make in these matters. The Hebrew and Greek texts do not actually use the term false prophet. They speak of one who prophesies falsely, and they tell us that God sends the one who prophesies falsely (many but maybe not all of them) and gives them the words to say to us, which means those words contain truth, even if that truth is presented in such a way as to encourage the strong delusions of those who do not love God or truth, but instead prefer their idols of the heart. I have presented all of this on this site many times with the text that teach this, so I will not do so again.

As a student and as a teacher I learned long ago the importance of unlearning things we thought long ago we have always thought we believed or did right. I know how difficult this process is to teach and to learn, and I know it has to be done before truth can be taught. Since most of my posts directly address these kinds of falsehoods, and because the unlearning portion is often longer than the learning portion, and can NEVER be separated from the learning portion if either of them are to be effective, I will never separate those things out simply to please you or anyone else.

Because I claim all my beliefs are well founded in scripture (with the acknowledgement that my interpretation can be flawed due to my own idols of the heart) I have no patience for anyone who presents "evidence" to me without scripture. I get very dismissive of those people very fast, and if they are those who are supposedly highly educated in the church or anywhere else I get very disparaging if they do not begin to actually study and present evidence. (Contrary to Christian teaching this is not necessarily a bad thing, although I do admit I do sometimes cross the line into maliciousness, thus into sin. If you doubt being disparaging is acceptable under some circumstances read Matt 23 -- woe to you hypocrites, Ezekiel 4 where Ezekiel interceded by eating bread mixed with dung (or maybe only cooked over dung; the Hebrew is not entirely clear on this point), or the derivation of one of the words for idol, gillul, which is sometimes translated as log, not because it is made of wood, but because the log resembles some other little round brown thing. Is this disparaging? Yes.)

Present me with scripture for everything you present and I will respectfully hear you out. Catch me presenting something without scripture and call me on it if I don't previously say, "This is only my own opinion;" (we are allowed opinions if they are presented as such, and not as biblical truth.) This Bible is our rule of faith and doctrine, but we are to live by every word of God, most of which are not included in scripture. If you can prove it is true and it does not contradict scripture I will accept it as valid evidence, but only with great skepticism as scripture requires.

Sign In

Biblical Inquiry on Divorce

Recommended Posts

Dr. Shane

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Gregory Matthews

Gregory Matthews

Dr. Shane

Gregory Matthews

Gregory Matthews

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

CoAspen

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Gregory Matthews

CoAspen

Dr. Shane

CoAspen

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Myron

Myron

Dr. Shane

Gregory Matthews

Myron

Myron

Myron

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity