|
The updated site is here now: https://surefoundation.info/index.php/en-us/?view=article&id=90&catid=25 You will be forwarded in 10 s. |
(by Andreas Weber) Here are some questions and answers, that did not fit there, but may interest some others, too (I hope, that the answers are not too short - if you have any more questions or remarks, please send them to me):
Why do I go into such detail about this issue? What is my goal?Lets say: It developed. When I first read the bible with someone - I thought: Oh, I have to leave my wife, because she was divorced before. People calmed me down and I don't know, if they said anything about all sins will be washed away in baptism.Then there was a big upheaval in our churches and many got divorced and remarried and somehow this didn't feel right. Probably someone asked me about the issue and I started to study it out to finally figure out the truth. It hurts me to see, how many people are hurt by missing guidance in this matter. My goal is that we do it right from some point in time on. The world is in a bad state since a long time. 2000 years ago Jesus already called the people an adulterous generation. All this adultery hurts lots of people. So my dream is, that we at some point do it according to Jesus' words - no divorce, no remarriage - just loving relationships. Call me naïv, but I really believe, that Jesus' way is better. Maybe the following approach is necessary to not have too much upheaval? - I am not sure, if anybody can offer this concession today - it would be better to immediatly do it as Jesus said. So here it comes:
It is a little like Ezra 9 and 10 and Nehemiah 13:1-3, 23-31. When I read this, then I am so encouraged of their heart and repentance. That's how our inward reaction should be, when we realize, that we did things against Jesus' words: "When I heard this, I tore my tunic and cloak, pulled hair from my head and beard and sat down appalled. Then everyone who trembled at the words of the God of Israel gathered round me because of this unfaithfulness of the exiles. And I sat there appalled until the evening sacrifice. Then, at the evening sacrifice, I rose from my self-abasement, with my tunic and cloak torn, and fell on my knees with my hands spread out to the LORD my God and prayed: "O my God, I am too ashamed and disgraced to lift up my face to you, my God, because our sins are higher than our heads and our guilt has reached to the heavens." (Ezra 9:3-6)
Is there a valid ground to end a marriage? When can you divorce? Is it possible to annul a marriage?There was a dispute at Jesus' time between rabbis, if one could let go ones wife for any cause and Jesus was asked on which side he stands (Matthew 19). Jesus was on the more restricting side and may have narrowed the valid four reasons (unrepented sexual immorality, neglect of food (+ drink), clothing and conjugal love) down to just one: unrepented sexual immorality (marital unfaithfulness, fornication) - his disciples were shocked.As well, they may have been shocked, because Jesus forbade the usually succeeding remarriage. Another possibility for divorce: You are not enslaved to marriage, if an unbeliever wants to leave the union - But the union continues anyway, that's why Paul commands divorced people to remain single or reconcile with their spouse. Anyway, no matter if the divorce was valid or not Jesus forbade remarriage. I assume that Paul allowed it in case the former spouse died, since he allowed remarriage for widows - Jesus didn't speak about this detail so I trust that Paul had the authority to loosen Jesus' general restriction. Interestingly some of the Early Christians advised widows not to marry again - that's how they understood Jesus and Paul. So the strictest view closest to Jesus' words would be to only have one marriage at all. There may be a possibility that the one-flesh-state is not reached (e.g. no intercourse, one or both partners were forced into the marriage, psychological problems), then an annulment may be possible according to the Catholic Church - I am not sure, what Jesus thinks about this, but it may be an option. If an annulment took place, both partners could marry in the future (but of course only after the problems are solved).
When is remarriage possible? Is Jesus' command just an exageration? Can an "innocent party" remarry?Death is the only ground that allows remarriage in the NT. (I am pretty sure that either the family or the church would have taken care of the divorced people in the remote cases of a Christian getting divorced by an unbeliever.)How can someone say: "The person who remarries is not necessarily a literal adulterer, any more than the one who hates is a murderer." The person who remarries definitely has sex while still being one flesh with another person. So it is real, physical adultery. Yes there is hyperbole in Mt 5, but not in Mt 19 - There it is obvious as well, that Jesus teaches something very challenging: The disciples stated: "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." And Jesus did not reply that they misunderstood, no, he even enforced it: "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Jesus did not exaggerate at this part, he meant it as he stated it - and we still have difficulties to accept it. Paul is very clear in Romans 7:2-3 ("For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.") and in 1. Corinthians 7:39 ("A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord."). Is there hyperbole around it? Additionally Paul changes the phrase from common Jewish divorce certificates to be limited to possible remarriage to someone who belongs to the Lord - but only after death. The only grounds for remarriage remains death ("death" in baptism seems to be acceptable). The only grounds for divorce was adultery and a Non-Christian can divorce a Christian, but these are no grounds for remarriage.
It was illegal to remain single in the Roman world, at least up to a certain age. But there are examples in the bible of unmarried widows like Hanna (Luke 2:36 - let's say: married at 16, plus seven years = 23 when she might have become a widow) and for Jesus and Paul it seems to not have been a problem to stay unmarried. (But probably the rules for men and women were a little different.) From a very brief study of the topic I get that the punishment may have been only that you would be unable to inherit from distant relatives, so no big deal. As well there were exceptions depending on how many children one already had. Paul as a Roman citizen and knowing lots of stuff probably knew this law, too. But he had no problem saying the following: "... Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. ... But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this." (1. Corinthians 7:27-28) - the troubles of marriage seem to have been more than the trouble caused by this Roman law. The bible does not speak about an innocent party - this would be difficult to judge anyway. So no remarriage unless one died somehow. (Marriage after annulment is no remarriage in a way.)
Could a marriage die? Could it be viewed equally as death, if the partner is forever gone (e.g. the former spouse is married to someone else)?To me these ideas seem to be human inventions to get around a clear statement from Jesus.In case of the former spouse being married to someone else it could be that this marriage ends as well. And then you can reconcile. And a dying marriage should be revived. That's what Jesus is trying to teach us (see here).
Who has authority to teach? Who is in the best position to understand the bible?We need to grasp how the original listeners understood the message. That's why background information is important.The bible seems to teach footwashing, and unless we allow for a cultural element in interpretation then we should keep washing feet. The Bible is more helpful in figuring out the truth about some things than about others. Some things are easy to grasp, others are not. Some things are very important, others are less important. At some points biblical culture meshes smoothly with our culture, at other points not - discernment and study are required. It simplifys things if we focus on our Lord and his views. We may be better positioned than the 2nd century church fathers to understand what Jesus and Paul meant, since we have access to multiple sources to which they were not privy: Dead Sea Scrolls fragments on divorce, newly discovered Jewish divorce certificates from the 1st and 2nd centuries, over 200 Aramaic, Greek, and Latin marriage and divorce papyri, rabbinic evidence datable to the 2nd century, divorce documents from the Geniza of the Cairo Synagogue. But it seems arrogant, if you oppose the biblical words. Jesus says, people become one flesh, when they marry, Genesis said it before and the 2nd century Christians said it afterwards. If one says "No, you can separate this one flesh by other means than death." then this is arrogant or even worse.
Why don't I interpret or explain the scriptures that I used?To me these are self-explanatory. If you take them at face value they speak for themselves. You can read the context as well and they become even more clear. But if you have specific questions or remarks, I would love to hear them.
Does the bible provide clear answers about marriage, divorce and remarriage?If you have Jesus as a cornerstone, then yes. If you try to match the Old Testament with the New one and then as well with Jewish customs, then no. Jesus is the king and he changed some things - so we just have to follow his words and the details given by Paul (after we match these details with Jesus' words so that they don't contradict each other).
Why didn't Mark and Luke mention the exception given in Matthew?Maybe because the goal is that people stay together and learn from their failures - even adultery?So that people forgive and deal with the shortcomings of people like God does with us? Jesus' view is, that you shall not separate, what God put together - never (only at death). Maybe Mark and Luke focus on the remarriage aspect? It basically doesn't matter why someone got divorced. They can't remarry (until death of one).
Why did the church fathers not mention the "any cause" controversy?Maybe they did not know the controversy, maybe they didn't care. Because Jesus was clear: He did not allow divorce! The only exception was unrepented sexual immorality, but even this only because of the hardness of their hearts.The controversy would only have consequences, if unrepented sexual immorality would have been a valid reason for remarriage as well. But Jesus was clear, that no one can remarry (exceptions see above), who is divorced. So the controversy was meaningless for them - and us.
Is Jewish background information important?In this case not really, since Jesus put a new standard on divorce and remarriage: No divorce (but a man should not stay with a woman who continues in sexual immorality), because you shall not separate, what God put together and no remarriage. (See above for possible exceptions).So the background information can only show why the disciples were so shocked by Jesus' new teachings.
How would Jesus deal with these issues today?That's hard to say, because we know Jesus' grace in the past, but his judgement in the future. Would he show grace or judgement today?I am pretty sure, that he would still show grace and point to the coming judgement and then leave it open to the people, if they want to follow him. He would continue to eat with sinners as we should, but he would distance himself from people who say that they are his followers, but then disobey him. He would probably treat them like the Pharisees.
Is this a disputable matter according to Romans 14:1?You can dispute every matter. But if Jesus says clear words about something, what is there to dispute?Basically if you deviate from Jesus' words, you need a water-tight rock-solid explanation for the day of judgement. Especially if you are a leader. Jesus says: Anyone who marries a divorced person commits adultery. If you are involved in a wedding of a divorced person, then you need a good explanation for that. And with "good" I mean something that would be accepted by the judge, who said "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.".
Last Updated : 25.12.2018 |