Five Questions on the Divorce & Remarriage Issue

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

No, I don’t believe this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Thanks again for your understanding my friend.

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

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

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

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

Thanks Mike

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does this change the picture any?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please reread the following post and share any feedback:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Lobo:
Glad that you enjoyed the post. The Nazarite vow is one of those sections of Scripture that we haven't made much head way on but I have a study to share with you if you are interested in it. I thought I had posted it on this board but it may have been someplace else. Daryl do you know if it is here?

Mike:
I think the issue with the post exhilic Jews is that they had made a covenant with the heathen. They had committed divorce when they did that. I believe that Jesus came in through His prophet and cut the heathen off. If the Jews had stayed united they to should have been cut off. The difficult part is how to apply it to now. Just like in the destruction of Jericho Jesus asked His people to do things outside of the norm. For example in the marching around the city Jesus had them do things on Sabbath that we do not normally do. He had them march 7 times around on Sabbath and then literally kill every man, woman, and child on Sabbath. This is not the norm but when the Most Holy God asks you to do this kind of work on Sabbath it is right to do. But how to apply that to our normal Sabbath is a stretch that we would need the next prophet to help us with.

I will restudy the I cor counsel on Paul and give you my thought on it.

FYI

Numbers 6
2 "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When a man or woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to dedicate himself to the LORD, 5 'All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall pass over his head. He shall be holy until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the LORD; he shall let the locks of hair on his head grow long. 9 'But if a man dies very suddenly beside him and he defiles his dedicated head of hair, then he shall shave his head on the day when he becomes clean; he shall shave it on the seventh day. 18 The Nazirite shall then shave his dedicated head of hair at the doorway of the tent of meeting, and take the dedicated hair of his head and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of peace offerings.

Paul and other are examples; Acts 18:18; 21:24

I started a new thread on the Nazarite Vow for Today. I would appreciate your thoughts. I had to revise it because it would not take the information in a table form. So used OT - Old Testament and NT - New Testament to show the comparisons.

Greg, how do you know the Jews marched 7 times around Jericho on the Sabbath? was the 7th day the sabbath or some other day? when did they start? Your point is well taken though - sometimes God works out of the ordinary.

I look forward to your thoughts on 1 Cor.

I am still trying to understand this abandonmant theology of 1 Cor. 7.

How would it work in the practical sense?

Does it mean that, if my wife, a believer, were to leave or abandon me, also a believer, that I would be free to divorce her and marry somebody else?

Yes. The underlying principle of abandonment is unfaithfulness. If someone abandons their spouse they are unfaithful, they have violated the vows of marriage. Abandonment is merely a symptom, the root cause is unfaithfulness.

There are many ways people can be unfaithful, not all of them involve physical adultery. When extensive counseling and guidance yield unfavorable results the abandoned spouse is free to divorce and remarry.

Remember, abandonment and neglectful indifference are not the same thing. Couples can neglect one another and still live together. But abandonment means they are no longer cohabitating. In some cases the offending spouse disappears altogether never to be seen or heard from again. Under such circumstances proving adultery is impossible.

It is unlike our loving heavenly Father to require an abandoned person to remain unloved, unwanted and unmarried. God's desire is for men and women to be happily married to the right person. Few things demonstrate heavenly bliss better than happily married couples and families.

Is sexual perversion grounds for divorce? Well, certainly adultery is, but as for other forms of perversion I suppose each case must be considered individually. Even adultery can be forgiven and marital bliss restored without pursuing divorce. All things are possible with God. So long as the offending spouse is genuinely repentant and willing to remain married the offended partner should be agreeable. Look how many times God took the Jews back (as demonstrated in the case of Hosea and Gomer).

But if the offended party is looking for excuses to get divorced I believe they are being just as unfaithful. Using adultery as an excuse to get divorced is not the intent of the law. As I see it, legitimate grounds for divorce boils down to abandonment. If a spouse abandons their partner, with intentions of never getting back together, the root cause of their unfaithfulness doesn't really matter - it can be any reason not just physical adultery. In such cases the abandoned spouse is free to divorce and remarry.

In cases where literal, physical adultery is impossible to prove abandonment is just cause for divorce and remarriage. There are many reasons why adultery would be impossible to prove - the offending party totally disappears and is never seen again or they makes vows of celibacy or they are incapable of having sexual relations, etc. But whether physical or spiritual adultery it doesn't matter because any form of unfaithfulness that results in permanent abandonment is just cause for divorce and remarriage. Of course a reasonable amount of time should be allowed to determine whether or not the abandonment is permanent or just temporary.

To suggest that Jesus meant physical fornication is the only just cause for divorce and remarriage, and that all other causes results in adultery, ignores the fact that God Himself required the post-exilic Jews to divorce their wives for causes other than fornication or adultery (see Ezra 10) and that He also made allowances for divorce and remarriage in cases of abandonment (see 1 Cor 7). Obviously, Jesus' counsel on divorce and remarriage is not limited to literal fornication (pre-marital sexual intercourse) or adultery (post-marital sexual intercourse).

Matthew
5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

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

Mike, I agree with you, but still, how do you reconcile Paul saying that that statement came from him as apposed to it coming from Jesus?

It seems that if we take Paul to be inspired, then we have to accept his direction in 1 Cor 7:15 as also being from God. If this is the case, then I think Paul was indicating that Jesus command regarding divorce did not address the unequally yoked issue. As such, Paul stating that a believer is not “bound” it an unbelieving spouse leaves is not in conflict with Jesus commands about divorce.

So after some study and a lot of prayer I believe that it is scriptural to believe that if a unbelieving spouse leaves the believing spouse is free to remarry.

And thus you have fallen from grace to being under the law. This is precisely how it is done.

Thus people would rather have RULES. Some, what you can do, some, what you can't. But it all amounts to 'how to justify one's own actions', and what man thinks/concludes is acceptable with God. Having learned from the Lord is no replacement for the Living Lord.

Shalom

Lobo, thank you. I agree wholeheartedly with your studied conclusions on abandonment, divorce and remarriage.

Vincent, I also agree with your observation that God purposely did not instruct us on every minute detail regarding divorce and remarriage.

I believe the main purpose for the laws governing divorce and remarriage is to prevent wanton, careless, caloused divorces. They were never meant to prevent legitimate cases where divorce and remarriage is right and needful.

Divorce is necessary in cases where the purpose of marriage is not being fulfilled. God designed marriage to be a beautiful thing, an awesome experience, a way for Him to showcase His love for created beings.

But when a hard hearted spouse refuses to live at peace the purpose of marriage is defiled. Because of the sinfulness of man not everyone can or desires to live at peace with their spouse. And God has made a way of escape - divorce and remarriage.

I agree Mike that it is because of the hardness of the heart, that any rules come in.

The question is, how many Marriages does one have to go through, because of the hardness of the heart?

Man has truly missed his greatest blessing in Marriage. What is that?

Here is the problem:

Men try to join things together, while it lasts, then I guess it was a mistake, try again etc.

Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

God never intended it that way!

Here is God's solution

What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder.

What is a heart that is not hard? It is one that seeketh not it's own, that chooses not it's own.

It is God that needs to make the twain one. No one else can. But that is only possible when the heart delights to do his will. If one desires a spouse, then let such ask of God. God delights to give good gifts. Regardless of circumstances, let such seek audience with their heavenly Father and ask of him, and receive such as God chooses. Then there shall never be any need for these rules because of the hardness of the heart.

The Lord will make such a one fit to be a husband or wife and then will give a wife or husband, a blessing as only he can do. The twain shall be one.

It is his delight to be favored with such a request.

Shall we choose for our selves, and then make rules. If we ask of God and receive from him, that is grace, we need no rules.

Shalom

John, beautifully put. Amen!

John,

unfortunately we are not perfect and people do make mistakes. Many times we pay for our lack of restraint of our youth. The “rules” are there because we are born sinners. We are not born with soft hearts that naturally seek God. That is why Jesus called it being "born agai"! Get it?

So while your utopian view is technically correct, it doesn’t seem to allow for the real world we live in. Certainly the goal, once we are able to realize it, is to let God lead us in the choice of a spouse, but many do not understand this or cannot understand this in their current spiritual state.

I look back now, and sure, if I had to do it over again I would have done things differently. However, I CAN’T GO BACK!

So all I can do is learn from the past and go forward and not make the same mistakes. God will indeed lead me in this effort, while in the past that was not the case.

So while I wholeheartedly wish I could have understood this the first time, that is not my reality today and nothing I can do to change that.

So while the rules may not be there for you, and I certainly hope that is the case for all believers, they are there for me (a sinner) and I thank God for them!

Lobo,

It is not what was done in the past that is the issue. True without the Lord we suffer much. But the issue is TODAY.
TODAY, we do not need rules to tell us what to do about the mess we got into. But today we may go to our heavenly Father with all our mess; most of all our messy self, and lay it at his feet. Let him cleanse us heart soul and mind, and receive from him such, as we have not dreamed of.

How sad it is to watch people muddle around trying to fix things. When we make mistakes, that is least of times we need rules. What we need at that time, more than ever (if that is possible) is to come to our Lord. The master maker is waiting, but it takes surrendering all our desires to him, so that he can give us the desires of our heart.

If you would like I can share what the Lord has done for my wife and I in this regard.

Shalom

[ November 05, 2003, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: John Boskovic ]

It is a beautiful thing when couples are able to salvage a troubled marriage by relying on Jesus. I love all those stories and testimonies about couples who were heading toward divorce but by the grace of God and through prayer and patience they pulled off a miracle. Thank you Jesus! Sad to say though these stories are rare and few between. But thank God when they are told. I love it.

But on the other hand I am equally impressed with the stories where an abused or abandoned spouse recovers from their loss, works through the pain and trusts the Lord to supply all their wants and needs. In time the perfect person comes along and the magic of marriage happens again and wedding bells ring unto the honor and glory of God. And the newly weds live happily ever after. That's my story. Thank you Jesus!

John, I appreciate your point, it’s just that no one can change another heart. Only God can do that.

So if one is unequally yoked all the believer can do is hold on to God and that relationship. But at these times, when you are searching for answers, the direction that God did leave in scripture about these issues is very comforting and not seen as “rules”.

Based on your post I suspect that you have never gone through this type of thing, and I don’t wish that on anyone.

In any case, I also appreciate Mike’s post as I can tell he understands my pain as he has been there himself.

[ November 06, 2003, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Lobo ]