Remarriage After Divorce

in Adventism

Research by David Zic

The research presented in this paper is meant to explain the basis for the position of
the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement with regards to the issue of
remarriage after divorce. It is hoped that the reader will study further and deeper
into this material for their own understanding of the topic. If your own family is
hurting, if your marriage is in trouble, if your relationship with your spouse seems
to be going away, then please reach out for help. The Lord brought us all into
church fellowship to be a help to one another, and by His grace your family can be
restored.

David Zic
November 23, 2018

Caveats ……………………………………………………………………..……5
Biblical Marriage …………………………………………………………..…..7
Biblical Position ……………………………………………………………..….7
Biblical Questions …………………………………………………………..….9
Spirit of Prophecy Position …………………………………………………..14
Spirit of Prophecy Usage ……………………………………………………..14
Spirit of Prophecy Questions ………………………………………………..15
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………..23

Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement

PO Box 7240
Roanoke, VA 24019
1-540-362-1800
www.sdarm.org

!2
“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto
his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. [32] This is a great mystery: but I speak
concerning Christ and the church. [33] Nevertheless let every one of you in
particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her
husband.”—Ephesians 5:31-33.

The institution of the family is so sacred that it is used by God as the

description of the relationship between Christ and the Church. We cannot
enter into a discussion of the family without first acknowledging the sacred
ground upon which we are entering.

“He who gave Eve to Adam as a helpmeet performed His first miracle at a marriage
festival. In the festal hall where friends and kindred rejoiced together, Christ began
His public ministry. Thus He sanctioned marriage, recognizing it as an institution
that He Himself had established. He ordained that men and women should be
united in holy wedlock, to rear families whose members, crowned with honor,
should be recognized as members of the family above.”—The Ministry of Healing, p.
356.

The importance of the family in the progress of the Christian fellowship

cannot be understated. The enemy of souls has known for some time that he
will never convince Adventists to abandon the Sabbath, but he also knows
that if he can weaken their families, the spirituality will seep out of their
lives. As divorce rates in Adventism have reached those of the world, it is
evident that we need a reexamination of the impact this has on our position
to spread the final message of warning to this world. Research shows a direct
link between divorce and spirituality.

“Previous research has shown that family stability—or instability—can

impact the transmission of religious identity. Consistent with this research,
the survey finds Americans who were raised by divorced parents are more
likely than children whose parents were married during most of their
formative years to be religiously unaffiliated (35% vs. 23% respectively).

“Rates of religious attendance are also impacted by divorce. Americans who

were raised by divorced parents are less likely than children whose parents
were married during most of their childhood to report attending religious
services at least once per week (21% vs. 34%, respectively). This childhood
divorce gap is also evident even among Americans who continue to be
religiously affiliated. Roughly three in ten (31%) religious Americans who
were brought up by divorced parents say they attend religious services at
least once a week, compared to 43% of religious Americans who were raised

!3
 by married parents.”—Exodus: Why Americans Are Leaving Religion. Pew
Research, September 22, 2016.

This is a very sensitive issue because of its prevalence in modern society, and
even in modern-day Adventism. The analysis below will show that it is very
clear from God’s Word that He has instituted marriage to be between one
man and one woman, and that such a marriage vow is binding as long as both
partners are alive. Even though the Bible does open the way for divorce in
some cases, it also makes it very clear that this does not lift the commitment
to faithfulness for either partner, and that they may not remarry as long as
the other partner is still alive.

As the mainstream of Protestantism has over the second half of the last
century moved away from this Biblical standard, Adventists have also started
to debate what the cultural and religious context of the time of these Biblical
passages was, if it applied to a so-called “innocent party,” and if there were
exceptions in cases of unfaithfulness (adultery). Nonetheless, we believe that
the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and it is the sole basis of our faith. In
these Scriptures we find no indication that God’s law can be adjusted to
modern sentiments, personal opinions and feelings, or modern times.
Adventist Reformers are aware that in taking this Biblical position we are
not on the “popular” side, but we cannot as God’s last-day remnant people
waver off the platform of God’s law.

“Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of
God, and the faith of Jesus.”—Revelation 14:12

God’s remnant has not been given only the Sabbath to restore, but all of the
character of God, as reflected in His law. This means that we will not be
successful in our defense of the Sabbath if we disregard other portions of the
law. Adventist must also be seen as restorers of the breach society has
created in the family. The restoration of broken families is a powerful
testimony for the cause of present truth. “The greatest evidence of the power
of Christianity that can be presented to the world is a well-ordered, well-
disciplined family. This will recommend the truth as nothing else can, for it is
a living witness of its practical power upon the heart.”—Testimonies for the
Church, vol. 4, p. 304.

Backslidden Sabbath-keeping will accompany an increasing disregard for the

family institution, but strong Christian families will give evidence to the
power of the Sabbath. “The Sabbath is a sign of creative and redeeming
power; it points to God as the source of life and knowledge; it recalls man’s
primeval glory, and thus witnesses to God’s purpose to re-create us in His

!4
 own image. The Sabbath and the family were alike instituted in Eden, and in
God’s purpose they are indissolubly linked together. On this day more than
on any other, it is possible for us to live the life of Eden. . . In His own day
[God] preserves for the family opportunity for communion with Him, with
nature, and with one another.”—Education, pp. 250-251.

“In the time of the end every divine institution is to be restored.”—Prophets and
Kings, p. 678.

“He referred them to the blessed days of Eden, when God pronounced all things
‘very good.’ Then marriage and the Sabbath had their origin, twin institutions for
the glory of God in the benefit of humanity.”—Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing,
p. 63.

At this time, with so much emphasis on the Sabbath among Adventists, the
enemy has found a new way to weaken our ranks. The breaking of Adventist
families is a sure way for enemy to weaken our mission in giving the final
message to the world. While the world has sought to redefine and change the
Biblical family, the Word of God remains clear on the sanctity of the marriage
institution. Specifically in regards to the issue of remarriage after divorce, it
is the position of this paper to show that the Adventist Communion
makes a prohibition of all remarriage except in the case where a
spouse has died. The evidences from Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy
for this position are provided in the sections below.

Caveats
“And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every
where to repent:”—Acts 17:30.

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed
away; behold, all things are become new.”—2 Corinthians 5:17.

Caveat #1: This paper does not address those coming to the faith in a
condition where they are divorced and remarried. It deals solely with those
who are part of the Adventist communion and then divorce. Those who come
in this condition are accepted as they are, with an understanding that they
accept the Present Truth and will accept a pledge to be faithful to the
commandments of God. “Take them as they are found, leaving these things
that cannot be undone to the past.”—Uriah Smith, “Divorce and Marriage,”
Review and Herald, February 8, 1887, p. 89.

!5
“WHEREAS, Our Saviour has laid down the one sole ground on which parties once
married can be divorced; and,
WHEREAS, the practices of society have become most deplorable in this respect, as
seen in the prevalence of unscriptural divorces; therefore,
RESOLVED, That we express our deprecation of this great evil, and instruct our
ministers not to unite in marriage any parties so divorced.”—Resolution at the 1887
General Conference Session of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Caveat #2: This paper does not speak of divorce and separation alone, but of
remarriage after divorce. Most of the Biblical quotations and Spirit of
Prophecy statements that are analyzed actually simply deal with when a
person can divorce. There is no Biblical understanding that divorce
automatically allows remarriage. Quite the contrary. Early Adventism
struggled not with the issue of remarriage after divorce, but of divorce itself.
It was in this context of increasing divorce in society that the 1879 General
Conference presented proposals to address the issue, but all three proposals
presented were tabled at that time. The only other time the issue was
addressed by the General Conference in session during the 19th century was
at the 1887 session when the only item addressed was divorce, with a
forceful decision that ministers not marry persons who had been divorced for
“unscriptural” reasons.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church will not create an official policy on

divorce and remarriage until 1932, by which time the Reform Movement was
already in existence, so the new doctrinal position will not be part of its
fundamental beliefs. The 1932 policy was the first time that the idea of an
“innocent party” was codified and ministers were given leeway to determine
if the person was in such a condition. If unsure, they were now directed not
to the Biblical standard, but rather to other local conference officers. This
discretion allowed for different ministerial standards to emerge, from the
very lax to the overly conservative.

With the establishment of the Church Manual as a supreme document for

Seventh-day Adventists, following the 1932 position all further changes will
be made in that document. The 1942 Autumn Council required that all
persons who had committed adultery could only be readmitted to church
fellowship by rebaptism, and members who were disfellowshipped because of
wrongful second marriages could “not be readmitted to church membership
so long as the unscriptural relationship continues.” But in 1946 this was
changed to say that repentant adulterers did not need to be disfellowshipped
or rebaptized. This was further amended in 1950 and again in 1976 when
the reasons for divorce were extended beyond adultery to include other
sexual deviations.

!6
“For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that
one bread.”—1 Corinthians 10:17.

Caveat #3: This paper should be studied with an understanding of closed

communion that is practiced by the Reform Movement. [Please refer to the
paper “In Remembrance of Me” for a full explanation of the position on the
SDARM for closed communion.] In a closed communion church membership
takes on a significance not seen in an open communion church. In open
communion anyone can partake of the service, so membership, marital
status, etc., do not have the same significance. This paper assumes the
church is still holding to the original position of closed communion, meaning
that a person who was part of the communion, divorced, and remarried while
their spouse still lived, would be excluded from the communion service.

Biblical Marriage
In order to understand why there can be no remarriage after divorce, it is
important to have a Biblical definition of marriage.

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his
wife: and they shall be one flesh.”—Genesis 2:24.

Marriage creates a new being composed of “one flesh.”

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; [8]
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. [9]
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”—Mark 10:7-9.

No person, including those within the “one flesh,” those with authority over
the “one flesh,” or anyone else, can break this relationship.

Biblical Position
“Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the
wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy
companion, and the wife of thy covenant. [15] And did not he make one? Yet had he
the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed.
Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife
of his youth. [16] For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away:
for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take
heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”—Malachi 2:14-16.

!7
 God hates divorce, especially because it harms the whole family.

“And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another,
committeth adultery against her. [12] And if a woman shall put away her husband,
and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”—Mark 10:11-12.

All remarriage after divorce is adultery, whether it is the husband or the wife
who does the divorcing. There are no exceptions mentioned to this rule.

“And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. [18]
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and
whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”—
Luke 16:17-18.

Jesus does not recognize divorce as terminating a marriage in God's sight.

The second marriage is called adultery because the first one is considered to
still be valid. Jesus is taking a stand against the Jewish culture in which all
divorce was considered to carry with it the right of remarriage. The second
half of the verse shows that not merely the divorcing man is guilty of
adultery when he remarries, but also any man who marries a divorced
woman. There are no exceptions mentioned in the verse.

“And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart
from her husband: [11] But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be
reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.”—1
Corinthians 7:10-11.

Paul emphasizes that this is the position of the Lord. Since he makes no
exception here for adultery, he can only be referencing the position of Christ
found in Mark 10. Again, there is no exception here. The innocent person, if
such a thing exists, must still remain unmarried.

“The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be
dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.”—1
Corinthians 7:39.

“Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law
hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? [2] For the woman which hath an
husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband
be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. [3] So then if, while her husband
liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her

!8
husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she
be married to another man.”—Romans 7:1-3.

The only way that the “one flesh” is done away with, is by death. No
exceptions are made to this law, since it is directed to those “that know the
law.” Those who may be ignorant of the law should be taught the law. (“And
the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men
every where to repent:”—Acts 17:30.)

Biblical Questions
We believe that the weight of Biblical evidence sustains the position that all
remarriage, except in the case where a spouse has died is prohibited.
Nonetheless some have raised objections to this position based on verses that
seem to permit divorce. For example, what about Biblical divorce in the law
of Moses?

“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find
no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him
write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his
house.”—Deuteronomy 24:1.

This is a law of when divorce is permitted. It does not deal with remarriage
and cannot be used to sustain any right of remarriage, only a right to divorce
from the person who has committed adultery (having “uncleanness”), which is
why the next three verses elaborate on the person who was put away because
of “uncleanness.”

“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find
no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him
write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his
house. [2] And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another
man's wife. [3] And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of
divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the
latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; [4] Her former husband, which
sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for
that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which
the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.”—Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

There is no remarriage of the innocent party here. The remarriage here is of

the “unclean” one. And after her remarriage she may not return to her
husband.

!9
 [As a side note, continuing on those who are in ignorance, the prohibition of a
wife returning to her husband after a second marriage is strong evidence that
today no second marriage should be broken up in order to restore the first
one. God calls on souls to live up to the light they now have. This will be
evident later in a Spirit of Prophecy statement often used to support the idea
of remarriage after divorce, when she is actually writing about the case of
someone who has already remarried.]

The Jews had later misused the law of Moses to extend beyond “uncleanness”
to any reason. When confronted by them, Christ corrected their views on
divorce.

“The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful
for a man to put away his wife for every cause? [4] And he answered and said unto
them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them
male and female, [5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother,
and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? [6] Wherefore they
are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not
man put asunder. [7] They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a
writing of divorcement, and to put her away? [8] He saith unto them, Moses because
of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the
beginning it was not so.”—Matthew 19:3-8.

Christ restores the original “one flesh” of marriage for His followers. Why
then did God permit Moses to make this decree?

“Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and
had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols. Wherefore I
gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not
live;”—Ezekiel 20:24-25.

“And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away
his wife? tempting him. [3] And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses
command you? [4] And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and
to put her away. [5] And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of
your heart he wrote you this precept. [6] But from the beginning of the creation God
made them male and female. [7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and
mother, and cleave to his wife; [8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they
are no more twain, but one flesh. [9] What therefore God hath joined together, let
not man put asunder.”—Mark 10:2-9.

!10
 Jesus rejects the Pharisees' use of Deuteronomy 24:1 and raises the standard
of marriage for his disciples to God's original intention in creation. No one
should try to undo the “one-flesh” relationship which God has united.

“It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of
divorcement: [32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever
shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”—Matthew 5:31-32.

What about the exception clause in the Sermon on the Mount? Due to the
circumstances of the day, Jesus assumes that women will need to remarry,
and yet calls any such marriage adultery.

Leaving out the exception clause, if a man marries a woman who is

innocently put away, he is guilty of adultery. The one innocently put away,
and then remarried, is considered to be in adultery. With the exception clause
then, adulterous women may remarry while innocent ones may not.
Following the “innocent may remarry” line of logic used today, the innocent
person should commit adultery to be allowed to remarry if they wish to use
this verse as evidence. That is a ridiculous position and clearly not what
Christ was speaking of. Jesus is not here advocating remarriage. That is not
the intent of the verse. It is simply stating under what grounds divorce would
be permissible (since God hates divorce—Malachi 2:16), not defining a
position on remarriage.

If the physical sexual act alone broke the marriage vow, then the innocent
one is asked to break the commandment of the Lord to sanctify a second
marriage. But this verse says the one put away should not remarry,
indicating that the “one flesh” relationship of both the guilty and the innocent
remains intact.

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,
and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is
put away doth commit adultery.”—Matthew 19:9.

This is the most famous divorce verse, often referred to as the “exception
clause.” Neither Mark nor Luke make this exception, even though they are
writing to cultures which have ingrained practices of divorce. In any case,
verse 9 cannot be read without combining it with the absolute statement of
verse 6 to “let no man put asunder.”

To understand this verse, first we must know if it is referring to adultery or

fornication. Matthew uses the word porneia (improper sexual act) instead of

!11
the word moicheia which means adultery. The only other place besides
Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 where Matthew uses the word porneiais is in 15:19
where it is used alongside of moicheia. (“For out of the heart proceed evil
thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness,
blasphemies:”—Matthew 15:19.) Therefore, the primary contextual evidence
for Matthew's usage is that he conceives of porneia as something different
than adultery and properly in its normal sense of fornication (premarital sex)
or incest. It is also in this context that Paul uses the word. (“It is reported
commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not
so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's
wife.”—1 Corinthians 5:1.)

The most famous use of porneia in Scripture is in John 8:41 where the Jewish
leaders accuse Jesus of being born of porneia. In other words, since they don’t
accept the virgin birth, they assume that Mary had committed fornication
and Jesus was the result of this act. (“Ye do the deeds of your father. Then
said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even
God.”—John 8:41.) What is the context by which the Jewish leaders make
this accusation? “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his
mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was
found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just
man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her
away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the
Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear
not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of
the Holy Ghost.”—Matthew 1:18-20. Joseph and Mary are referred to as
husband (aner) and wife (gunaika). Yet they are described as only being
betrothed to each other. In the time of Christ betrothal was a much more
significant commitment than engagement is today. In verse 19 Joseph
decides “to divorce” Mary. The word for divorce is the same as the word in
Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. Here Matthew indicates that Joseph was “just” in
making the decision to divorce Mary, because of her porneia (fornication).

Since neither Luke (writing to a Greek audience) nor Mark (writing to a

Roman audience) use the exception clause, we can see that Matthew (writing
to a Jewish audience) includes the exception clause to exonerate Joseph and
to show that the kind of “divorce” that one might pursue during a betrothal
on account of fornication is not included in Jesus’ absolute prohibition. In
other words, since the Jews considered an engaged couple as married
already, Matthew says these unions may be dissolved before the actual
marriage. Then Mark and Luke do not add the exception clause because no
such cultural norm is practiced in their intended audiences (Roman and
Greek, respectively).

!12
 But what if we accept the wrong idea that “fornication” here is “adultery”?
While the Roman Law law forbade extra-judicial killing for crime, the law of
the Pater Familias allowed the head of the household to petition for the
death of someone who had shamed the family, for example by committing
adultery. The punishment for adultery was death, if so requested, and such a
punishment was executed immediately. The guilty party in a case of adultery
was put to death. Therefore they no longer live and the innocent party is
freed from the bond of marriage, according to the law. Then even if you
wrongly translated porneia as marital infidelity, you still could not use the
Matthew 19 exception clause as permission to remarry so long as the guilty
spouse remained alive.

By accepting that Matthew is writing to his Jewish audience and uses the
term porneia (fornication) instead of moicheia (adultery) in the wider context
of his defense of Joseph’s contemplation of divorce, we can see no
contradiction with the words recorded by both Mark and Luke.

“His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good
to marry. [11] But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they
to whom it is given. [12] For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their
mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and
there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of
heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”—Matthew 19:10-12.

Jesus understands the difficulty of the position He is presenting to the

disciples. This seemed like an intolerable prohibition to them. If you close off
every possibility of remarriage so long as the spouse lives, then you make
marriage so risky that it would be better not to marry, since you might be
trapped to live as a single person for the rest of your life, or else be trapped in
a bad marriage. Christ tells the disciples that the command not to remarry is
a divine gift given to the disciples. Christ is saying that the mark of a disciple
is that they receive a gift of continence, while non-disciples don’t. Then we
can conclude that a person who remarries after divorce shows that they have
not experienced the grace of Christ.

“But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not,
and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. [13] And the
woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell
with her, let her not leave him. [14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by
the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your
children unclean; but now are they holy. [15] But if the unbelieving depart, let him
depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called

!13
us to peace. [16] For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy
husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?”—1
Corinthians 7:12-16.

Is there a Pauline exception to free one from the “one flesh”? This is the idea
of Paul, and not to be construed as a divine permission. The word used for
“bondage” (douloo) in verse 15 is not the same word used in verse 39 where
Paul says, “A wife is bound (deo) to her husband as long as he lives.” Deo is a
legal term while douloo is a social term.

To be consistent with verses 11-12 which prohibited any remarriage then,

and remembering that the divorce itself would be sinful, Paul is simply
stating that a deserted partner is not “bound to make war” on the deserting
unbeliever to get him or her to stay. The peace God has called us to is the
peace of marital harmony. Therefore, if the unbelieving partner insists on
departing, then the believing partner is not bound to live in perpetual conflict
with the unbelieving spouse, but is free and innocent in letting him or her go.
This is permission to divorce, not permission to remarry.

Spirit of Prophecy Position

“There are many unhappy marriages because of so much haste. Two unite their
interests at the marriage altar, by most solemn vows before God, without previously
weighing the matter, and devoting time to sober reflection and earnest prayer.
Many move from impulse. They have no thorough acquaintance with the
dispositions of each other. They do not realize that the happiness of their life is at
stake. If they move wrong in this matter, and their married life proves unhappy, it
CANNOT be taken back. If they find they are not calculated to make each other
happy, they must endure it the best they can.”—Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 120. [Also
in Spirit of Prophecy, vol.1, p. 111 & The Signs of the Times, April 24, 1879.]
[Emphasis supplied]

This is the only statement of Ellen White referencing this issue and
published by her for public distribution during her lifetime.

Spirit of Prophecy Usage

The issue of remarriage after divorce is a difficult position for a Reformer.
Mainstream Adventists usually accuse us of using the Spirit of Prophecy
instead of the Bible, but here the Bible is clear, and they run to the Spirit of
Prophecy to try and make their case for the remarriage of the innocent party.

!14
 The Lord has given His people the Spirit of Prophecy with a purpose to
examine ourselves and come fully into harmony with His Word.

“God’s Word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of
the Word. Great care should be exercised by all believers to advance these questions
carefully, and always stop when you have said enough. Let all prove their positions
from the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim as truth from the
revealed Word of God.”—Evangelism, p. 256.

“Regarding the testimonies, nothing is ignored; nothing is cast aside; but time and
place must be considered.”—Selected Messages, book 1, p. 57.

“Beware, how you give credence to such reports. . .To all who have a desire for truth
I would say: Do not give credence to unauthenticated reports as to what Sister
White has done or said or written. If you desire to know what the Lord has revealed
through her, read her published works. . . . Do not eagerly catch up and report
rumors as to what she has said.”—Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, pp. 694-696.

After examining the weight of Biblical evidence in the previous sections, both
in the Old and New Testament, we must conclude that the Christian
Communion makes a prohibition of all remarriage except in the case where a
spouse has died. The Bible as a rule of faith is sufficient and the Adventist
should be assured that the Spirit of Prophecy is in complete harmony with
God’s Word.

Spirit of Prophecy Questions

“Counsel to One Contemplating Divorce—Your ideas in regard to the marriage
relation have been erroneous. Nothing but the violation of the marriage bed can
either break or annul the marriage vow. We are living in perilous times, when there
is no assurance in anything save in firm, unwavering faith in Jesus Christ. There is
no heart that may not be estranged from God through the devices of Satan, if one
does not watch unto prayer.

“Your health would have been in a far better condition had your mind been at peace
and rest; but it became confused and unbalanced, and you reasoned incorrectly in
regard to the matter of divorce. Your views cannot be sustained on the ground from
which you reason. Men are not at liberty to make a standard of law for themselves,
to avoid God’s law and please their own inclination. They must come to God’s great
moral standard of righteousness….

!15
“God gave only one cause why a wife should leave her husband, or the husband
leave his wife, which was adultery. Let this ground be prayerfully considered.”—The
Adventist Home, pp. 341-342. [Letter 8, 1888.]

This statement gives permission to divorce, not permission to remarry.

“I cannot see what more can be done in this case, and I think that the only thing
that you can do is to give up your wife. If she is thus determined not to live with
you, both she and you would be most miserable to attempt it. And as she has fully
and determinedly set her stakes, you can only shoulder your cross and show
yourself a man.”—The Adventist Home, p. 344. [Letter 40, 1888.]

This statement is consistent with the words of Paul 1 Corinthians 7. Once

again, he has permission to be divorced from his wife, but no permission is
given here for remarriage. In fact, after his divorce he will need to shoulder
his “cross.”

“J did not put his wife away. She left him, and put him away, and married another
man. I see nothing in the Scripture that forbids him to marry again in the Lord. He
has a right to the affection of a woman.”—Selected Messages, book 2, p. 340. [Letter
50, 1895.]

This is one of the “innocent party” statements used to defend remarriage

after divorce. Unfortunately in Selected Messages it is given without context.
It almost appears like Ellen White is saying a divorced man can marry again
since he is innocent in his wife leaving him. But the actual letter is
something very different. That is why this private letter was never given out
for public distribution. There are so many special issues with this case that it
simply cannot be used to establish a position on remarriage. Unlike letters
that could benefit others and were reprinted in the Testimonies for the
Church, this letter dealt with a very specific case. But since it is used, we will
have to go through the actual letter, not the little bit quoted in Selected
Messages.

Special Consideration #1: The man here is sterile. “Walter did not put his
wife away. She left him, and put him away, and married another man. I see
nothing in the Scripture that forbids him to marry again in the Lord. He has
a right to the affection of a woman who, knowing his physical defect, shall
choose to give him her love. The time has come when a sterile condition is not
the worst condition to be in. I see wives who have borne large families of
children, and they are unable to give them proper care. These women do not
have time to recover from the weakness of bearing one child before they are

!16
with child again.”—Testimonies on Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce, p.
68. Walter had sterilized himself without his wife’s permission.

Special Consideration #2: The letter is not written to the divorced man or to
the woman contemplating marrying him. It is written to her mother. “In
regard to the marriage of your daughter with Walter C, I see where you are
troubled.”—Testimonies on Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce, p. 67.

Special Consideration #3: The marriage has already taken place. Ellen White
is not stating if the marriage can happen or not. She is responding to a
mother writing about her daughter who has already married a divorced man.
She has taken a vow before God and is now bound by that vow. “But the
marriage took place with your consent, and your daughter, knowing all about
him, accepted him as her husband; and now I can see no reason why you
should carry any burden over this matter. Your daughter loves Walter C, and
it may be that this marriage is in the order of God in order that both Walter
and your daughter may have a richer Christian experience and be built up
where they are deficient. Your daughter has pledged herself to Walter C in
marriage, and to break her marriage vows would be far from right. She
cannot now disannul her obligations to him.”—Testimonies on Sexual
Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce, p. 67.

She had already married Walter. This is not the Spirit of Prophecy giving
permission to remarry, it is dealing in the best way to a situation that is
already at hand. Even so it “may” be right, but it “may” be something else.
The Spirit of Prophecy is simply saying, she has already married him, so deal
with it. She cannot back out of this. That is consistent with the directions of
Deuteronomy 24.

Special Consideration #4: The mother was trying to now say the marriage
was wrong for financial, not doctrinal reasons. Walter had money and means,
while the family of the wife was not well off. When she thought her daughter
was marrying a rich man, she was fine with the marriage, but when he would
not share his means with his new wife’s family, suddenly the mother wanted
to break the marriage. “Walter is not perfect in character. He has some
objectionable characteristics. He has been entrusted with means, and he does
not always put it to the very best account.”—Testimonies on Sexual Behavior,
Adultery, and Divorce, p. 70. When Walter’s brother-in-law asked him for
money and he said, no, go earn your own money, the mother-in-law tried to
break up the marriage.

Special Consideration #5: This marriage is “evil” in the eyes of the Lord. “I
am truly sorry that you have taken upon yourself unnecessary burdens. Do

!17
you not see that in separating Walter and your daughter, you would create
two evils instead of curing one? Your daughter has married Walter, and
there is no reason why she should be separated from him. You have no just
excuse for desiring them to cease living and working together as man and
wife.”—Testimonies on Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce, p. 73.
[Emphasis supplied.] So then the marriage was an “evil,” but one that needed
to be lived with because breaking the second vow would make an even
greater evil.

Special Consideration #6: Since the marriage has already happened, this
letter is not based on Scriptural grounds. Ellen White even tried to save the
marriage of Walter. “I have tried to enable Laura to see and understand her
duty. But as she has taken the course that she has, I cannot see that this new
union should be disturbed. It is a serious matter to part a man and his wife.
There is no Scriptural ground upon which to take such a step in this case. He
did not leave her, she left him. He did not marry again until she had obtained
a divorce. When Laura divorced herself from Walter he suffered most keenly,
and it was not until Laura had married another man that Walter married
again. The one he has chosen, I feel certain, will be a help to him, and he can
be a help to her.”—Testimonies on Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce, p.
69.

And in any event, this evil has nothing to do with the remarriage of an
innocent party. His first wife, Laura, was just a troubled person. In other
paragraphs she is mentioned as a person who tried to spend all his money
and even extort money from Walter. But again, it is not dealing with a case of
simple adultery, but a very special case of a eunuch.

Special Consideration #7: Before the second marriage Ellen White wrote to
Walter that she did not think his remarriage would stand the Biblical test
and counseled him to put His trust in God. “I cannot see what more can be
done in this case, and I think that the only thing that you can do is to give up
your wife. . . And as she has fully and determinedly set her stakes, you can
only shoulder your cross and show yourself a man. . . . You asked me if I
thought, if your wife left you, that you should marry again. I would say [that]
if one understanding all the circumstances should choose to marry you, if
you had NOT been married, I see no objections. But I am not fully
prepared to give any judgment, whether in a Bible point of view you could
marry again. [The individual addressed was a eunuch.] My mind is so fully
occupied that it is not possible for me to consider this vexed question of
marriage and divorces. I wish I could help you, but that, I fear, is not
possible. . . . I hope you will be a man. Lay aside this matter; go to your
labor; do your duty irrespective of everyone else on the earth, self-forgetting,

!18
 self-denying, self-sacrificing. In this will be your power.”—Manuscript
Releases, vol. 13, pp. 296-297. [Emphasis supplied]

Special Consideration #8: This second marriage did not last. “ have received
your letter, and in reply to it I would say, I cannot advise you to return to
Walter Harper unless you see decided changes in him. The Lord is not
pleased with the ideas he has had in the past of what is due to a wife. At one
time I spoke very plainly to Walter in regard to his responsibilities to his
wife. It is very clear to me that it would be a mistake for you to be united
again while your love for him is quenched. He cannot make you happy unless
his views are changed. . . if Brother Harper holds to his former views, the
future would be no better for you than the past has been. He does not know
how to treat a wife. I feel very sad about this matter. I feel indeed sorry for
Walter, but I cannot advise you to go to him against your judgment. I speak
to you as candidly as I spoke to him; it would be perilous for you to again
place yourself under his dictation. I had hoped that he would change.”—
Manuscript Releases, vol. 18, p. 350.

“Still Married in God’s Sight, Although Divorced—A woman may be legally divorced
from her husband by the laws of the land and yet not divorced in the sight of God
and according to the higher law. There is only one sin, which is adultery, which can
place the husband or wife in a position where they can be free from the marriage
vow in the sight of God. Although the laws of the land may grant a divorce, yet they
are husband and wife still in the Bible light, according to the laws of God.

“I saw that Sister _____, as yet, has no right to marry another man; but if she, or
any other woman, should obtain a divorce legally on the ground that her husband
was guilty of adultery, then she is free to be married to whom she chooses.”—The
Adventist Home, p. 344.

As with the statement from Selected Messages, it is necessary for us to

understand the “time and place” of this statement. You can find the letter in
Testimony Regarding The Monterey, Michigan, Church, 1863, found in
Manuscript Releases, vol. 17. Once more, we will see that this is more
telenovela than doctrinal statement. There are a huge number of special
circumstances that make this tragedy improper to be used to establish a
doctrinal position. There are four principle characters in this drama: Victor
Johnson, Sister Johnson (who is looking to remarry after divorce), Albert Day
(a pastor seeking to marry Sister Johnson after his wife died), and Sister Day
(sick wife of Albert Day, who passed away).

Special Consideration #1: The husband of Sister Johnson can return to the
Lord. “l saw that Victor Johnson has dreadfully fallen, but I have seen that if

!19
even now he humbly repents he may return to God. Yet I doubt whether he
ever will come into a position where God can acknowledge him as His.”—
Manuscript Releases, vol. 17, p. 154.

Special Consideration #2: There is no consideration of adultery in this case.

“His love of drink is constitutional; that is why the habit is so strong and so
hard to overcome.”—Manuscript Releases, vol. 17, p. 154. Victor Johnson is
NOT an adulterer. He is an alcoholic.

Special Consideration #3: Sister Johnson is NOT an innocent person and her
emotional affair with Albert Day is the reason her husband has been driven
to drink. “I was pointed back and shown the interest which you have
manifested for Sister Johnson. It was, I saw, greater interest than you should
have taken in her case or in any other one situated as she was. In the divorce
your influence was too great. These things have injured you. Yet, if you had
not taken the unwise course you have of late, unbelievers would not have
looked with so much suspicion upon your past interest which you have
manifested. You have had thoughts of making Sister Johnson your wife. If
you should do this, you give the death blow to all the influence you have tried
to exert in Monterey.

“You have moved blindly, very blindly. If you should follow your own mind
and purpose in this matter instead of being happy in your marriage relation,
you would be miserable. God’s blessing would not attend you. You would
forfeit the confidence of your brethren. A few view matters as you do, but they
are as blind as yourself, and all of them are not reliable….

“l saw that his wife had suffered much on his account, yet she has not always
done as she should and helped him as she should.”—Manuscript Releases, vol.
17, p. 154. Sr. Johnson and her paramour, Br. Albert Day, were guilty of
driving Victor to drink even more. She is NOT an “innocent” person.

Special Consideration #4: Any marriage considered here would destroy the
cause of present truth. “Brother Day, you were not as careful as you should
have been to abstain from all appearance of evil before Sister Johnson left
her husband. You were in her company, often alone in conversation with her.
However pure your motives, you have been judged, and now, especially since
the death of your wife, unbelievers put their own construction on the matter;
and if you should make her your wife you would bring a reproach upon
yourself and the cause that your whole future life could not wipe away. You
would give the enemies of our faith cause to blaspheme.”—Manuscript
Releases, vol. 17, p. 155.

!20
Special Consideration #5: There was an emotional affair that complicated the
relationship in both marriages. “Brother Albert Day, I was pointed back and
shown some things in the past. I was shown that you had moved injudiciously
while your wife lived, in frequently visiting Sister Johnson. There was a
wrong in this matter, and these things caused your wife much secret sorrow
and sadness. She had the utmost confidence in your integrity, yet she did not
feel at ease. The appearance was evil. You have been infatuated with Sister
Johnson. She has insinuated herself into your favor. She was not right; her
heart was not right; her thoughts were not right.”—Manuscript Releases, vol.
17, p. 157.

“For years Victor has noticed your preference for his wife’s society, and it has
had a tendency to discourage him and drive him to his old habits. God’s eye is
upon all this matter. He is acquainted with it all; every word and act is
known to Him, and in order for you to recover yourself from the snare Satan
has set for you, you must make straight and thorough work.”—Manuscript
Releases, vol. 17, p. 160.

Special Consideration #6: The partial quote in Adventist home is misleading.

The full paragraph reads: “And again I saw, Brother Day, that the church [at
Monterey] has not taken the right view of scripture. A woman may be legally
divorced from her husband by the laws of the land and yet not divorced in the
sight of God and according to the higher law. There is only one sin, which is
adultery, which can place the husband or wife in a position where they can be
free from the marriage vow in the sight of God. Although the laws of the land
may grant a divorce, yet they are husband and wife still in the Bible light,
according to the laws of God. I saw that Sister Johnson as yet has no right to
marry another man, but if she or any other woman should obtain a divorce
legally on the ground that her husband was guilty of adultery, then she is
free to be married to whom she chooses. I saw that Sister Johnson was not
free to marry again.”—Manuscript Releases, vol. 17, p. 156. The expression
here “I saw” is not given to indicate inspiration or the possibility of
establishing doctrine. The left out part shows that there is another position to
be considered here. “Then the matter was presented in another light. If
there were no difficulties and Albert could marry her according to the laws of
the land and not violate God’s law, yet he ought not to do so if by so doing he
injures the cause of present truth. That cause should be dearer to him than
life itself; and if by marrying he should bring one stain upon the cause of God,
his wife is dearly purchased, and he cannot be happy, for God’s blessing will
not attend him. I saw that Brother Albert has highly regarded the truth; he
has sacrificed for the truth. Now he can make a sacrifice which comes closer
than his possessions. He must die to self. Self must be sacrificed. Self is
touched. His own will must be yielded and be brought into subjection to the

!21
 will of God.”—Manuscript Releases, vol. 17, p. 156. And what is present
truth? It is the restoration of “old paths,” - the twin institutions of the
Sabbath and marriage (Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing, p. 63).

This statement cannot be used to make a doctrinal conclusion. There are so

many special considerations. A man having an emotional affair with another
woman while his own wife is dying is not the proper foundation for a
doctrinal position. The “time and place” principle for the use of the
Testimonies must be considered here. This letter was written in June of 1863,
and she states that there was possibly “another light” on the matter. More
than 25 years later she states that she still had not been given light on the
matter of remarriage. “I am not fully prepared to give any judgment, whether
in a Bible point of view you could marry again.”—Manuscript Releases, vol.
13, p. 296.

“l do not think any such questions as that ought to be placed before me. I do not
think it is my work to deal with any such things unless the case has been plainly
opened before me. There should be brethren in the church who have wisdom who
can speak decidedly regarding this case. I cannot understand such things...Such
things will arise. It will come-that is, they will have these difficult questions, and
they have got to learn how to treat them. They have got to have an experience. They
must bring these things to the Lord, and believe the Lord will hear their prayer,
and give them a sound experience in all these things, but they are not to bring them
to me.”—Manuscript 2, 1913.

The Position of the Spirit of Prophecy is—no position from the Spirit of
Prophecy necessary since the Bible is clear! “Mother has received during the
last twenty years many letters making inquiry regarding the matters about
which you write, and she has many times written in reply that she had no
advice to give different from that of the apostle Paul. Recently she has
refused to deal with letters of this character, and tells us not to bring them to
her attention.”—William C. White, October 6, 1911.

So her writings are not to be used as definitive answers for questions of

divorce and remarriage. “After reading the documents I today send you, you
will say, ‘Well, he has not given me anything authoritative from Sister White
that directly answers the question.’ But I think you will see from what I am
sending you that it was Sister White’s intention that there should not go
forth from her pen anything that could be used as a law or a rule in dealing
with these questions of marriage, divorce, remarriage, and adultery.”—
William C. White, January 6, 1931. Then the Bible position, no remarriage
after divorce so long as the spouse lives, is the one supported by the Spirit of
Prophecy.

!22
 Conclusion
“The signs of the times-the wars and rumors of wars, the strikes, murders, robberies
and accidents-tell us that the end of all things is at hand. God’s Word declares, ‘As
the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the
days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving
in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until the
flood came and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.’
How true a description this is of the condition of the world today. The daily papers
are full of notices of divorce and marriage after divorce-the marriage condemned in
the words of the Savior - full of accounts of amusements and games, of pugilistic
contests in which human beings maim and disfigure one another to exhibit their
brutal strength.”—Letter 153, 1901.

Marriage after divorce is here, without any exceptions, then listed as one of
the great sins prior to the second coming of Christ. Now is the time for the
people of God to restore every divine institution. That restoration means that
we change the circumstances of a marriage in crisis, but do not change the
partners who have pledged themselves at marriage.

The protection of the family is part of the restorative work that God’s
remnant people are to undertake. We can expect that as we more closely
approach the second coming of Christ our adversary will attack the family
even more. The church must provide a place where broken families can
receive healing. We can be the place where hurting couples can be, by the
renewing power of grace, transformed into that oneness promised to the
family in Eden.

!23