|
|
|---|
Clearly, then, there is far more to the subject of divorce than most of us have thought.
This article examines key Bible passages on divorce from a Seventh-day Adventist perspective. It then discusses the position of Adventist pioneer Ellen White.
1. The Biblical position
Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Deuteronomy 24 is the main Old Testament passage on
divorce. It contains a very long sentence which reads in part:
When a man has taken a wife
and married her
and it happens that she does not find favour in his eyes
because he has found some nakedness in her
and he writes her a divorce certificate...
and she becomes another man's wife
and her latter husband hates her
and writes her a divorce certificate...."
There are two grounds for divorce given in this passage.
The first is when a man "finds some nakedness" in his wife.
However, we today do not know what this Hebrew idiom means.
Whatever it means, it cannot mean adultery -- because adultery was
punished by death, not divorce (Deuteronomy 22:22).
The passage's second basis for a man divorcing his wife is
that he "hates her". These two words alone are sufficient to
show that an "adultery only" divorce theology is incorrect.
Genesis 21:8-14
According to the Seventh-day Adventist Bible
Dictionary, the end of the marriage of Abraham and Hagar
is an example of pre-Mosaic divorce. Abraham simply told Hagar
to leave his campsite, which was apparently the ancient
procedure.
The grounds for divorce were strife between Abraham's two
wives and strife between their children. God approved of the
divorce on those grounds (Genesis 21:12-13). There is no
suggestion of adultery or other sexual misconduct by Hagar. So
this, the Bible's first reference to divorce, refutes the
concept that the only biblical basis for divorce is adultery.
(Some may argue the two were never married. However, in
Genesis 16:3 Hagar is called "his wife." And in that verse
there clearly was a wedding process, a giving of Hagar to
Abraham "to be his wife".)
Leviticus 22:13
Leviticus 22 tells us about the rights of a priest's
divorced daughter. It says:
"When a priest's daughter is widowed
or divorced
and she has no children
and has returned to her father's house
as in her youth,
she can eat her father's bread."
No one except priests and their families could eat food
given as a sacred donation. When a priest's daughter married a
non-priest she also could no longer eat it. But if she became
divorced and was childless, she was reinstated to the
privileged status.
This shows divorcees should receive a high degree of
acceptance. Right at Israel's highest level (the priesthood),
there is this example of divorcees being fully accepted.
Unfortunately, this does not occur among us, where divorcees
are subject to discipline by non-biblical rules and are
sometimes even ostracised by church members.
1 Samuel 25:44; 2 Samuel 3:13-16
These passages tell of the separation and reunion of David
and his first wife Michal. She had helped her husband David
escape from her father King Saul. David later remarried and
Saul gave Michal to Palti (1 Samuel 25:44). This verse, like
Judges 14:20, suggests a woman's father could initiate a
divorce when his son-in-law deserted his wife.(Some people may
argue there had been no divorce in this case. But in 2 Samuel
3:16, Palti is called "her husband," which implies there had
been both a divorce from David and a remarriage to Palti.)
During the power struggle between King David and Saul's
successor, David demanded Michal be returned to him as a token
of goodwill. In this, David clearly broke the command of
Deuteronomy 24 that he could not remarry her after she had
remarried. There is no record of any divine rebuke of David
for this even though Deuteronomy 24:4 says such remarriages
are "abhorrent to the Lord." This suggests that punishement
in divorce cases should be left to God.
Ezra 10
More than 100 couples were divorced in Ezra 10. The basis
for all these divorces was that Jews had married non-Jews.
This biblical example makes marriage to a non-believer a
legitimate basis for divorce. Ellen White wrote favourably of
these divorces in Ezra 10. "This was the start of a wonderful
reformation," she wrote (Prophets and Kings page 622).
Jeremiah 3:8
Jeremiah 3:8 gives the Bible's only reference to adultery
as a grounds for divorce. Adultery in this verse is symbolic
of idol worship.
"For the many adulteries of faithless Israel,
I (God) sent her away
and gave her a divorce certificate."
For this symbolism to have any meaning, adultery must have
been a grounds for divorce. Earlier in Israel's history,
adultery was punished by death. Presumably, in the lax era
near the end of the divided kingdom, adultery no longer meant
the death penalty. So it became grounds for divorce. This
passage uses this as an illustration about Israel.
It's probably a safe conclusion to draw from this passage
that adultery is a grounds for divorce in jurisdictions where
adultery is not punished by death.
(In the light of the "adultery only" tradition in both
Protestant and Catholic Churches, it is significant that the
only verse that gives adultery as a grounds for divorce is
symbolic. It isn't much of a basis on which to build a whole
theology.)
The New Testament
As we have seen, the Old Testament divorce passages are
clear and straight-forward. But the New Testament divorce
passages are riddled with problems. Firstly, every New
Testament passage on divorce contains ambiguity. Secondly, the
New Testament seems to disagree with the Old Testament. And
thirdly, different New Testament authors seem to disagree with
each other. (Obviously, any interpretation of the New
Testament divorce passages must include a harmonisation of
these apparently conflicting views.)
Matthew 1:19
The very start of the New Testament narrative (after a
genealogy) has the threat of a divorce. When Joseph found out
that his fiancee Mary was pregnant:
"he decided to divorce her secretly."
Matthew 5:31-32
Jesus discusses divorce in the Sermon on the Mount. He
says:
"Whoever divorces his wife,
except for sexual misconduct,
makes her [seem to be] an adulteress.
And whoever marries a divorced woman
[seems to] commit adultery."
No matter what your interpretation, this verse does not say
adultery is the only grounds for divorce. It says "sexual
misconduct." The Greek word here translated "sexual
misconduct" is porneuo, while the Greek word for adultery is
moichao. Moichao is sexual intercourse outside of marriage by
or with a married person. (And linguistically, that is the
definition we use for the English word "adultery" in this
article.) Porneuo covers the widest range of sexual
misconduct. Figuratively, it even includes idol worship. The
use of porneuo in this verse is enough to show that adultery
is not the only basis for biblical divorce.
However, on the surface, this verse may seem to make
porneuo (sexual misconduct) the only basis for divorce. But if
this was so, it would be changing Old Testament teaching
(where legitimate grounds for divorce include family strife,
hatred, and marrying a non-believer). Yet the Sermon on the
Mount was not designed to change Old Testament teachings
(Matthew 5:17). So by the Sermon's own testimony, Jesus'
comments do not change the Old Testament divorce rules.
The Sermon on the Mount was given three years before Jesus'
death. It is true that certain things did change at Christ's
death and again three and a half years after his death. But the Bible has no
instruction that the doctrine of divorce was among those
things that changed. (And there is no logical reason why the
Cross should change the doctrine of divorce. The nature of men
and women was exactly the same before and after the Cross. And
the need for divorce is based on the nature of men and women.)
So we cannot claim this passage in the Sermon on the Mount was
a change for the Christian era because it was discussing the
then-present situation, not the situation as it would become
in three years' time.
If this passage is not setting up a new doctrine, what is
it doing? It is criticising corrupt Pharisaic practice.
One Jewish school of thought said you could divorce your
wife for
"the most trivial offenses" -- MB 63, such as for
burning dinner. Another said you could only divorce her for
adultery. I suggest this is the situation Jesus is addressing
in this passage. If a Jew divorced his wife for burning the
dinner (but didn't give the reason), people may think his wife
had committed adultery. By this action the husband "makes her
[seem to be] an adulteress."
Of course, if the wife already was an adulteress, his
action wouldn't have given her this label. Her own actions
would have done so. That is why Jesus includes the words,
"except for sexual misconduct".
Is this a legitimate interpretation? The word translated
"an adulteress" is passive, so you cannot say that this woman
has committed (or will commit) adultery. She may stay celibate
the rest of her life. The passive suggests the wife has
acquired the status of an adulteress, but that she has done
nothing to acquire this status. The woman has become "an
adulteress" in other people's eyes, but by no action of her
own. Thus the words "seem to be" are added to the above
translation.
So this passage is not saying adultery is the only basis
for divorce. Rather, it is saying easy divorce by a man brands
his wife as an adulteress, unless her own actions have already
made her so.
Matthew 14:3 and Mark 6:17-18
These two passages are references to Leviticus 18:16, which
prohibits "uncovering the nakedness of your brother's wife."
Here, John the Baptist seems to apply this Leviticus reference
to a divorced woman, but Leviticus doesn't seem to be talking
about divorce. Which view is correct? (This is yet another
ambiguity in the Bible's passages on divorce.)
These two passages are made even more ambiguous by the
possibility that they only express John the Baptist's personal
opinion. Thus they may not be a divine ordinance. And if so,
the situation would be particularly tragic because John's
false divorce theology would have led to his death.
Matthew 19:3-12
This next passage (with its parallel in Mark 10) is the
longest passage where Jesus speaks on divorce. It reads:
3 "Pharisees came to him
to trap him by asking,
Is it right to divorce your wife
for any offense at all?'
4 He answered,
Haven't you read
that from the beginning
the Creator
has made them
male
and female
5 And he said,
For this reason a man will leave
his father
and mother
and be united with his wife.
The two will become one.
6 So they are no longer two, but one.
Therefore, what God has joined,
people should not separate."
7 They replied,
Then why did Moses command,
"Give her a divorce certificate
and send her away"?'
8 Jesus replied,
`Moses allowed you
to divorce your wives
because of your unyielding attitudes.
But it was not like this
from the beginning.
9 I tell you,
whoever divorces his wife,
except for sexual misconduct
and remarries another woman
[seems to] commit adultery.'
10 His students said to him,
`If the offense of the man
against his wife
is like this
is it better not to [re]marry?'
11 He replied,
`Not everyone can accept this,
only those who are enabled.
12 There are eunuchs
who were born that way.
There are eunuchs
who were made eunuchs by men.
And there are eunuchs
who made themselves eunuchs
because of heaven's kingdom.
Those who can accept it,
let them accept it.'"
In this passage, Jesus is given the opportunity to state
the biblical grounds for divorce. He does not do so. Why? I
suggest that it is because Scripture doesn't intend to give
rules or laws for the basis of divorce.
The question the Pharisees ask is a "trap" (verse 3). Their
trap questions were usually to make Jesus side with one group
of people against another. The Pharisees then hoped to turn
the "losing" group against him. In this case, they wanted to
force Jesus to disown either the "easy divorce" group, or the
"adultery only" group.
Jesus avoids the trap by not answering their question.
Verses 4 and 5 are quotes from the Old Testament, but ones
which do not answer the question asked.
In verse 6, Jesus says people should not change what God
has done, and all sides of the argument would agree with this.
But again, he has not answered the question about legitimate
grounds for divorce. He does talk about marriages which "God
has joined." But are all marriages approved by God? Are there
some marriages (such as those in Ezra 10) which God has not
joined? This is one of several ambiguities in this passage. We
really do not know the limits of the meaning of "what God has
joined."
In verse 8, Jesus says that there was no divorce in the
Edenic state, but that divorce is allowed now because of
"unyielding attitudes." Is Jesus saying "unyielding attitudes"
is another ground for divorce? (This is yet another ambiguity
in the passage.)
Verse 9 can be interpreted either with or without the words
in square brackets. This raises another ambiguity. I
personally tend towards an interpretation without the
brackets. My preferred interpretation suggests that the action
of the husband leaving his wife and marrying another is one
action. It says that any man who divorces his wife for the
purpose of marrying someone else is committing adultery.
The Pharisees' external piety would not allow adherents to
commit adultery. So how could a Pharisee burning with lust for
a woman get around this restriction? He could hand his wife a
letter saying she was divorced for some trivial reason, and an
hour later he could marry the woman he was lusting after. He
could be having sex with her only a few hours after his true
wife found out something was wrong. Jesus doesn't call this
divorce. He calls it adultery (verse 9). And it clearly is.
To make my preferred interpretation clearer, we might
translate verse 9 something like this:
"Whoever divorces his wife...
to marry another woman
commits adultery."
Here the literal translation "and marry" is replaced by the
words "to marry." Is this a legitimate translation of this
Greek construction? In this very chapter, the NIV does
translate this way. In verse 27, when Peter asserts his
loyalty to Jesus, the NIV reads:
"We have left everything
to follow you."
"We have left everything
and followed you."
So the NIV testifies that this can be a legitimate way to
translate this Greek construction.
My other (less preferred) interpretation of verse 9 is that
it is talking about the opposite situation to that in Matthew
5. Again, the historical context is the two different Jewish
views on divorce: ie "adultery only" or "burning the dinner."
In this interpretation, verse 9 says that when a man divorces
his wife for a lesser reason, the "adultery only" group would
consider he is committing adultery.
Incidentally, both the Jewish views ("adultery only," and
"burning the dinner") are incorrect.
From verse 10 onwards, Jesus is talking to his disciples,
possibly after the Pharisees have left the discussion. But are
they talking about marriage, or remarriage? The Catholic
position is that it is talking about marriage, which allows
Catholics to use the passage to uphold celibacy of the
priesthood. (But that position does not seem to fit the
context of a question about divorce.) Another position is that
verse 10 is referring to remarriage. Since in verse 9 the Greek word
gamasa refers to remarriage, you would expect the same word to
refer to the same thing in verse 10. (And this does fit the
context.) Also, in the parallel passage in Mark 10, the
discussion is about remarriage, which strengthens the view
that this passage is discussing remarriage.
If verse 10 is talking about remarriage, then verse 11 is
saying, "Not every divorcee is given strength to remain
unmarried." So if the "remarriage" interpretation is correct,
Jesus gives divorcees approval to remarry -- at least he gives
this approval to those unable to remain alone.
Verse 11 suggests only "those enabled" should remain
unmarried. No one can know if another person is enabled, so a
decision to remarry must be a personal decision. Since not
even the church can know if a person is "enabled," the church
cannot be involved in that decision.
The thrust of verses 11-12 is that only people with
eunuch-like qualities can remain unmarried. The divorce theology
that
restricts a "guilty spouse" from remarrying fails to consider
both this passage and human nature. A "guilty spouse" has had
illicit sex within marriage. So why would he or she be more
able to resist the lesser sin of illicit sex outside marriage?
By creating a group of sexually experienced people who cannot
marry, such a theology would considerably increase the amount
of sex outside marriage.
Mark 10:2-12
This long passage in Mark 10 is largely a repetition of
Matthew 19:3-12. However, the private conversation with the
disciples in the last three verses is completely different.
That private conversation reads:
"In the house again
the disciples questioned him about this.
He told them,
`Whoever divorces his wife
and remarries another woman,
commits adultery with [against] her.
And if a woman divorces her husband
and remarries another man,
she commits adultery.'"
On the surface, this appears to conflict with Christ's
teaching in Matthew. There "sexual misconduct" is a legitimate
grounds for divorce. But this passage seems to say here that
there is no legitimate grounds for divorce. The conflict can
be resolved by again treating the two actions (divorce and
remarriage) as one. This would be clarified by an English
translation like this:
"Whoever divorces his wife
to remarry another woman,
commits adultery.
And if a woman divorces her husband
to remarry another man,
she commits adultery."
Without an interpretation like this, we have Scripture
disagreeing with itself.
Note that here we have a reference to a woman divorcing her
husband. In Jesus' day, I understand, the Romans had
introduced history's first law which allowed women to divorce
their husbands. Mark addresses this new situation.
Note also that here there is no difference whether women
divorce their husbands, or men divorce their wives. This
suggests that earlier Scripture passages which only talk about men
divorcing women would also apply when women divorce men.
1 Corinthians 7:10-16
Twice in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul deals with divorce. The first
passage says:
"To the married I advise
(not I, but the Lord),
that a wife should not separate
from a husband.
And if she does separate,
let her remain unmarried
or be reconciled
to her husband.
And a husband should not divorce a wife.
To the rest I say
(I not the Lord),
if any brother
has an unbelieving wife
who agrees to live with him,
he should not leave her.
And if a woman
has an unbelieving husband
who agrees to live with her,
she should not leave him....
But if the unbeliever wants to separate
let it happen.
The brother
or sister
is not bound in such cases."
This again is a highly ambiguous passage. We can draw
almost no clear guidance from it. The main source of the
ambiguity is verse 1, "Now concerning what you wrote to me."
Since we do not know the questions the Corinthians wrote to
Paul, we do not know what his answer means. The answer's
meaning would be vastly different if the question was, "Can
you leave you husband because you don't like his hairstyle"
than if the question was, "Can you leave your husband for
repeated adultery?"
The ambiguity of this passage is increased by the type of
verbs in the Greek. The verbs are verbs of advice, not of
command. So is what Paul writes not binding?
Further, in verse 12 Paul clearly says he is giving his
personal opinion on whether Christians married to
non-Christians can separate. Does this mean the comment he
makes is not inspired, not binding on Christians? The answer
is, "We don't know." So the passage is again ambiguous.
Verse 11 says "let her remain unmarried." The abiguity here
is for how long does this restriction apply? Is this to be
permanent, or just for a grieving and adjustment period to get
over the separation? Again, without knowing the question
asked, we don't know what this answer means. (See comments
later in this article on the long-term dangers of not
letting divorcees remarry.)
Verses 12-16 suggest there are different divorce rules for
church members and non-members. Verses 12-13 suggest that
believers cannot leave their spouses, but verse 15 suggests
non-believers can. Interestingly, this is the situation most
often faced in SDA divorces. I estimate that in about 90% of
Adventist divorces in Australia, at least one party leaves the church. That
effectively makes it a member/non-member divorce.
1 Corinthians 7:27-28
When Paul again discusses divorce in this chapter, he
writes:
"Are you bound to a wife?
Do not seek a divorce.
Are you divorced?
Do not seek a wife.
But if indeed you do marry
you have not sinned.
And if a virgin marries,
she has not sinned."
Again, this passage presents more ambiguity. Where the above
translation reads "Are you divorced?" the NIV reads, "Are you
unmarried?" The NRSV takes a similar position, "Are you free
from a wife?" However, the Greek implies a person who is free
now, but was not in the past. To reflect this the NRSV would
need to read, "Are you freed from a wife?" implying either a
widowed or divorced man.
If verse 27 is talking about a divorcee, then verse 28 is
saying the divorcee does not sin if he remarries.
Separation without remarriage
While still in 1 Corinthians 7, it is worth noting verse 9:
"It is better to marry
than to burn with passion."
This verse is talking about unmarried people. However, the
concept would apply even more to divorcees. After all, who is
more likely to burn with sexual passion, someone who has never
experienced sexual intercourse, or someone who has?
In the early Adventist Church, divorce tended to be
approved, but remarriage was considered unbiblical. This is a
dangerous theology. If SDA divorcees were not allowed to
remarry, many of them would become sexually active outside
marriage. This would be disastrous for the church. So for
divorcees also,
"It is better to marry
than to burn with passion."
Homosexuality is another problem which comes from a
theology that allows separation but not remarriage. Recent
statistics show that almost all homosexual males were raised
in homes without a father. And there is some evidence to
suggest that lesbians tend to be raised without a mother. So a
theology which prevents remarriage actually increases
homosexuality, something which God clearly does not intend.
Ambiguity in divorce passages
As the above analysis shows, there is a considerable amount
of ambiguity in the Bible's passages on divorce. We have seen
that every New Testament passage on divorce contains
ambiguity. Such ambiguity is relatively rare in Scripture. The
vast majority of passages about the Sabbath, for example, are
clear-cut. Divorce is one of only two doctrines I have studied
where it seems most or all the New Testament passages are
ambiguous.
So why are these passages ambiguous? Is it a mistake, or
does God have a reason? I suggest he has a reason. I suggest
he does not wish to present a clear-cut doctrine of divorce.
Some divorce situations may seem similar on the surface, but
when motives of the parties are known, they are quite
different. So, I suggest, God choses to not provide grounds
for divorce based on externals. His Word simply outlines some
cases where divorce is not proper, and some cases where it is.
Sometimes these cases even appear to be identical (such as
Ezra 10 allowing divorce when married to an unbeliever and 1
Corinthians 7 recommending against it.) So individuals and
couples must decide for themselves where their marriage fits
on the scale -- bearing in mind that the thrust of almost all
passages on divorce is against breaking up marriages.
Matthew 19 confirms there are to be no rigid rules
outlining the grounds for divorce. In this passage, when Jesus
was given an opportunity to state the grounds for divorce, he
did not do so. I suggest this was because there were to be no
specific grounds for divorce.
If divorce is so bad, why does Scripture allow it? Because
the alternative could be worse. For example, when King Henry
VIII could not divorce several of his wives, he simply had
them murdered. Clearly, divorce is better than murder, so God
allows divorce.
Church's authority over divorcees
Reading all the Bible's passages on divorce shows there is
no passage which gives the church authority to discipline
members because they divorce or remarry. Nor is there any
Scriptural example of discipline against people who divorce or
remarry. Put simply, there is nothing in Scripture which gives
the church any authority in the matters of divorce and remarriage.
2. Ellen White's Position
We now turn to Ellen White's writings. A well-known
statement by her son summarises Ellen White's divorce
position:
"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 dealing with these questions of marriage, divorce,
remarriage, and adultery. She felt that the different cases
where the devil had led men into serious entanglements were so
varied and so serious, that should she write anything that
could be considered as a rule for settling such cases, it
would be misunderstood and misused" If this statement from Willie White is correct, then we are
not to use what she wrote as "a law or a rule." On that basis,
we should form our theology of divorce on Scriptural grounds
only. However, it is still instructive to examine what she
said.
Grounds for separation
Ellen White allows separation for a number of reasons:
This last reference (about adultery) is so adamant that it
seems to contradict the previous references which allow other
grounds for separation. This last reference says:
"I would say that there is only one thing for which a
husband may lawfully separate from his wife or a wife
from her husband, and that is adultery."
How can we reconcile this last statement with those earlier
in the list? I see three possibilities.
1. This may be a personal opinion from Ellen White. Her
sentence starts with "I would say," which suggests it is
indeed a personal opinion.
2. This may apply only to a specific situation. The
previous sentence reads: "I have received a letter from your
husband." Since we do not know the matters raised in that
letter, we do not know what her response means. Thus, the
advice may apply only to the specific situation for which it
was given. (Indeed, most of Ellen White's divorce statements
are private letters written in response to specific
situations. Few times in her 70 years of writing did she write
publicly on divorce.)
3. Her use of the word "adultery" may cover far more than
the pure linguistic use of the word.
The meaning of "adultery"
Ellen White at times seems adamant on an "adultery only"
position on divorce.
"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." TSR 79
What does she mean by adultery? In Mount of Blessing pages
93-94 she agrees with Jesus' comment that the look of lust is
adultery. So "adultery" to her may have a broad meaning.
Consider the meaning of the word "adultery" in the
commandment,
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
In Jewish thought a command which states the worst case
also covers the least. Thus, a Hebrew rule that says, "Do not
commit perjury," would also cover not telling white lies. (In
English, we normally do the opposite. We would say, "Don't
even tell white lies," and this would include perjury.)
Applying this to the Seventh Commandment would mean that it
prohibits any type of sexual unfaithfulness or even other
types of unfaithfulness to a spouse. So while the word
"adultery" has the linguistic definition given earlier, the
command covers far more. And if the command covers more,
possibly Ellen White's use of the word "adultery" covers more
also. Indeed, she herself says so when talking of the Seventh
Commandment.
"This commandment forbids not only acts of impurity, but
sensual thoughts and desires, or any practice that tends
to excite them" -- PK 308.
In Testimonies to Ministers pages 434-435 she enlarges the
concept of adultery to include what we listen to.
"Any woman who will allow the addresses of another man
than her husband, who will listen to his advances, and
whose ears will be pleased with the outpouring of lavish
words of affection, of adoration, of endearment, is an
adulteress".
If elsewhere Ellen White's use of "adultery" can cover all
this, then perhaps it also covers this in the context of
divorce. If so, it would broaden the meaning of her comment
that only adultery could free a person from the marriage vow.
The marriage vow
Ellen White speaks of "the marriage vow," a concept not
found in Scripture. To her, the vow in "the marriage vow" does not just
include adultery, for she says,
"The wife is to respect and obey, but if she utterly
refuses to keep the marriage vow...."
TSR 77
Presumably, she is speaking of the traditional marriage vow
to "love, honour and obey thee [or protect thee], and to
keep myself only to thee until death do us part."
Thus, a husband who bashed his wife would be unfaithful to his
vow to protect her. A wife who belittled her husband would be
unfaithful to her vow to honour him. And a husband who stopped
loving his wife would be unfaithful to his vow to love her.
In some places it seems that Ellen White is saying that
this non-biblical vow is a binding vow. The individual has
vowed to never have sexual relations with anyone else, and
that vow is apparently still binding even after a divorce.
(Does this suggest we need a more biblical statement for
bridal couples at weddings so couples will not be bound to a
vow that goes beyond Scripture? Perhaps such a statement could
be: "I wish to take you, Robert, as my husband for the rest of
my life. What God has joined together, let no one separate.")
Authority of the church
Ellen White nowhere states that the church has any
authority in matters of divorce or remarriage. It is true that
when one of her staff was divorced, she referred the matter to
his local Conference president for possible discipline. But
this was not because of the divorce (his wife had divorced
him). It was for the behaviour which had led his wife to
divorce him.
In another case a couple had remarried (presumably with no
adultery involved in the divorce). When church members wished
to do something about it, Ellen said no.
"I advise that these unfortunate ones be left to God
and their own consciences, and that the church shall not
treat them as sinners until they have evidence that they
are such in the sight of the holy God" -- TSR 219
The case of Ellen's former brother-in-law Stephen Belden
also suggests the church has no authority in matters of
divorce and remarriage. Belden had been three times married.
His first wife (Ellen's sister) died. He divorced his second
wife because, after contracting measles, she became insane and
was placed in an asylum. Then he married a third time. People
at times suggested the church do something about this third
marriage because the divorce was not on the grounds of
adultery. According to W.C White, Ellen White's answer was,
"Let them alone" TSR 225. She felt no human authority could
override his personal divorce and remarriage decision.
In Ellen's eyes, this divorce on the grounds of his wife's
insanity clearly did not disqualify Belden from taking a
leadership role in the church. He became a pioneer missionary
to Norfolk Island, and was regularly encouraged by Ellen in
this work (Manuscript Releases vol 10 pages 127-150).
The Brownsberger Case
The case of Sidney Brownsberger appears to complicate Ellen
White's divorce theology. But perhaps it actually demonstrates
that her total thinking is more in line with the biblical
theology outlined in the first half of this article.
Brownsberger was a very prominent SDA. He was the first
principal of both of our first two university-level colleges
(Battle Creek and Pacific Union) and the second secretary of
the General Conference.
According to Willie White, Brownsberger's first wife
"became quarrelsome and made his life miserable" -- TSR 219. His
wife later divorced him and he then married another Adventist
woman. There was no suggestion of adultery by his wife, thus
some Adventists felt Brownsberger should not have remarried.
At that time he left church employment.
Ellen White's attitude was that this divorce and remarriage
did not disqualify him from taking a leadership role in the
church. She wrote to several administrators trying to lead
them to make a decision to re-employ him as a teacher for the
new Bible School in Melbourne (which became Avondale College).
When her efforts were not successful, she personally wrote to
him encouraging him to join her in Australia as a missionary.
The Brownsberger case is covered in TSR pages 219-223
(where he is called "Brother G"). It is clear that the main
problem Ellen White sees in him being re-employed is "whether
his record will not follow him" -- TSR 221. In other words, his
actions have not disqualified him; but in the Victorian era,
if he was known to be a divorcee, it may prejudice minds
against him.
Bias of White Estate
It is worth noting a bias of the White Estate editors who
compiled the TSR chapter which includes the Brownsberger case.
At the end of Ellen White's letter to Brownsberger, they have
added the comment, "Written five years after Brother G's
unscriptural marriage." However, Ellen White nowhere said his
second marriage was unscriptural. This bias is throughout the
chapter. The chapter is titled "Unscriptural Marriages" and
one sub-heading refers to "Unbiblical marriages." Yet neither
of these terms (nor any similar terms) are used by Ellen White
(or W.C White) about any of the marriages in the chapter.
The bias of the TSR editors is also shown in the chapter on
"Separation and Grounds for Divorce." They do not include
material in Adventist Home where Ellen White approves of
separation on grounds of: 1. a spouse not knowing how to treat
a partner (AH 343), 2. desertion by a spouse (AH 344) and 3.
an unbelieving spouse wanting to depart (AH 344). Yet they Non-adultery separations
As we have seen above, Ellen White seems to have approved
of insanity as a basis for divorce (TSR 224-5). Three passages
in Adventist Home allow separation on other grounds.
Adventist Home page 344 allows it when a non-believing
spouse wants to depart.
"If the wife is an unbeliever... [the husband] must abide
with her until she chooses of herself to depart."
The same page of Adventist Home frees a husband where his
wife decides not to live with him.
"If she is thus determined not to live with you, both you
and she would be most miserable to attempt it."
And Adventist Home page 343 allows separation from a
husband who does not know how to treat a wife.
"I cannot advise you to return to D unless you see
decided changes in him.... He does not know how to treat
a wife. It would be perilous for you to again place
yourself under his dictation."
Cultural differences
Cultural differences may be an explanation for the
apparently conflicting inspired grounds for divorce. Perhaps
Abraham was able to divorce Hagar because such family conflict
was an acceptable basis for divorce in his day. However, in
the Victorian era, respectable society would only allow
divorce for adultery. To prevent the church falling into
disrepute, it needed to equal or exceed the world's morality.
So Ellen White wrote against some divorces, even though they
seemed to be similar to Abraham's or Ezra 10's.
Last century, both Catholics and Protestants taught an
"adultery only" divorce theology (although it has no
Scriptural support). Uriah Smith adopted this view and he was
far more rigid in his divorce theology than Ellen White.
During his editorship of Review and Herald, it printed about a dozen
articles on divorce, all of them "adultery only." If the view
is correct that says the grounds for divorce are cultural, and
if the culture of Ellen White's day was "adultery only" it
would explain why she sometimes seems to advocate that view.
I personally feel this cultural position is unlikely to be
correct, at least, it is not the total picture. However, the
possibility should be considered in any serious analysis of
divorce theology.
Summary of Ellen White's position
To summarise Ellen White's position:
Ellen approved of
separation on grounds other than adultery. At times, some of
her writings seem to conflict with her other writings. But
these apparently conflicting opinions may be cleared up by the
possibilities that:
The fact that people made a marriage vow seems to be
important to her in not allowing them to remarry. Remarriage
is breaking a vow that said, "keep myself only to thee until
death do us part." And vows should not be broken.
It seems that she regards the decision to become divorced
or remarried as a personal issue between a person and God
-- although it is an issue on which church members may give
advice. But she does not give the church any authority to
discipline members for becoming divorced or remarried.
(However, some discipline may be necessary for associated
issues. And employment action may be needed for church
employees where the local culture limits the work of
divorcees.)
Positive approach to reducing divorce
Along with any review of divorce, we should possibly do a
review on how to have a successful marriage. This should
include a study of Song of Solomon, a book where almost every
word tells how couples should talk to and about their
partners. Couples who follow this biblical example would have
far less of the marital conflict that often leads to divorce.
Prayer and Bible study have an important marriage-preserving
role. I understand that the divorce rate for couples who
pray together on a daily basis and study the Bible together on
a daily basis is one divorce in a thousand.
We would keep far more marriages together by promoting the
Bible's positive ways of keeping marriages together. If our
our present negative approach of making life difficult for
SDAs who divorce keeps couples together, it doesn't truly keep
them married -- just together. A positive emphasis on
the Bible's secrets of marriage keeps couples married, not just together.
_________________________________
Author: Phil Ward.
All verses quoted are the author's own translation, except where specifically stated otherwise.
Non-biblical references