Divorce and remarriage
I have been writing this for a long time and I may repeat the same thing sometimes. This can be the case when it comes to new interpretive possibilities. What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage? Martin Luther believes that fornication and divorce are the two reasons that give the right to remarry. (Comment to Bergspredikan) By divorce is meant then not only the legal divorce. It is the person who caused the divorce who has divorced. When it says in Malachi 2:16 "For I hate divorce", means that God hates the cause of divorce. The Reformers believed that "malicious abandonment" was the reason for divorce. At that time, one could not divorce for reasons other than fornication, except in isolated cases, where one could get a dispensation from the Cathedral Chapter. Martin Luther says that "if the man is an evil shell" who does not get better, she would get a divorce. It could be that the husband was drunk and abused his wife and did not get better. All reasons that make it impossible to live together, because one party is too difficult, are then "maliciously abandonment". In the past, there was a government that forced the guilty party with severe punishment to improve. In most cases, they did so because they did not want high fines or imprisonment for water and bread. Today, no government comes and forces those who are too difficult to improve. If the husband abuses his wife or prevents her from getting quiet so that she can read the Bible and pray, then he is the reason she has to leave him. He is then guilty of "abandonment" or the one who caused the divorce. The same is true if she is greedy or disturbs him in his devotion. If you do not show consideration for each other, you have already caused a divorce. If one of the parties is completely cold and does not show any feelings, this spouse has caused the divorce. You are obliged to show consideration and affection, otherwise you have already divorced and caused a divorce. A marriage where one party is completely cold and does not show any love is broken by the one who is cold. It means the same thing as a divorce.
Fornication - what is it?
Why does Jesus say that fornication is the only reason for divorce? One might think that Jesus chose between "any cause" and "just fornication". Of these two options, Jesus chose "mere fornication," but he meant that divorce was another cause. Needless to say. It is a given. The innocent party in a divorce is always right. In GT, there are what I can see no exceptions for divorce. God hates divorce. Moth. 2:16 He hates the reason for the divorce. It is the one who causes the divorce that is different. Two Rabbis, Shammai and Hillel are the most famous in the Talmud. Rabbi Hillel allowed divorce for "any reason" and other rabbis allowed divorce only because of fornication, such as Rabbi Shammai. Jesus meant that one must not divorce "for any reason". He of the two chose "just fornication" and divorce, which is a matter of course. One can also think that porneia refers to forbidden joints, which is then an example of a reason that invalidates the marriage. There are other reasons such as e.g. if the marriage is entered into by force or if the intent was not seriously intended, eg sham marriage, to help someone come to a country. If Jesus was referring to adultery, he should have used the word moicheia, which means adultery. When there is a special word for adultery, that word should be used. In the case of prohibited joints, there is no party who is more guilty than the other, which has caused a divorce. Then you have to take the initiative for a divorce, that is, cause it. Otherwise you must not be the reason why you have to divorce.
Mer om källtexten
The one who causes the divorce is the one who
divorces. All causes, including repeated fornication, which means that
it becomes too difficult to live together, give the right to legal
divorce. To arrive at this, one must abandon what Martin Luther and the
Reformers said about this matter. Some theologians regard Luther and
the Reformers as infallible, so that they become some kind of pope.
But Martin Luther says in one place that "if he is an evil shell that
does not improve" she will get a divorce. After all, there was a
government that forced the culprit to improve. If they still did not
improve, despite fines and other punishments, Luther, like Johan
Gerhardt, meant that the innocent party could divorce and remarry.
Johan gerhard writes in his loci 200 pages about what he means by
divorce, said professor bengt Hägglund to me on the phone. I have
talked to most scholars in this subject, including Professor Evald
Löwestam, theologian Doctor Ingemar Furubeg, Domprosten G A Danell
and approx. 60 other theologians. What then is meant by fornication? As
I see it, it refers to either sexual intercourse, ie cohabitation or to
"forbidden joints". But you always have to look at the whole context.
It may be that one party has refused to live together or has been too
difficult to live with and thus driven the other to infidelity. In the
16th and 17th centuries, it was the Cathedral Chapter that gave
permission for divorce. After 1734, it was the secular court that
decided the case, but the Chapter of the Court would approve. You could
thus get a divorce for reasons other than fornication, but such an
exemption was granted only in a few cases each year. This was because
the guilty party had to improve. Both ecclesiastical and secular
authorities could otherwise punish that person. Now there is no such
authority that has the power to force anyone to improve. Then there are
many more reasons to divorce, when it becomes impossible to live
together. The believer must not divorce if the non-believer is willing
to live with the believer. 1 Corinthians 7:13 By "willing" must be
meant in such a way that makes it possible. There must be some feeling,
love, consideration and goodwill, otherwise you are not "willing to
live together". If one party has become completely cold or broken all
contact, then you do not live together. Can it be so difficult to
understand for some priests. Often the pastor can be an obstacle to
solving the problem. You must then refrain from obeying him. It can be
different freedom in different congregations to interpret the Bible as
one thinks is right. Would the priests of the Mission Province or a
Lutheran Confessional Church have listened to someone who interprets
differently than the Reformers did?
Difficult to interpret places
There are some passages in the Bible that can be difficult to interpret. Matt. 5:32 has caused problems for many. What most people do not know is how Martin Luther and Martin Schemnitz interpreted this place. Martin Schemnitz translated "He makes her an adulterer" and then says that she will sleep with married men, when she is divorced. Not all divorced women became adulterers, but some could. A Jewish divorced woman had a hard time finding a new husband to marry. Then there was a great risk that she slept with married men, because there were hardly any unmarried men. It was the duty of everyone to marry and multiply. The 1917 Bible translates Matt. 5:32 "he becomes the cause of adultery with her" and it is then meant that adultery is in passive form and means to "be exposed to adultery". Then it should be translated "he becomes the cause of adultery against her". If it is he who commits this adultery, it became clearer if Jesus had said "He commits adultery against her." Can even mean receive? Some say it can be translated: "He causes her to fall victim to adultery". (by himself) All translations bear traces of how the translators think. In the Bible of Charles XII, it is translated "He who takes her as abandoned is committing adultery." Matthew 5:32 If by her you mean the same woman as in the previous sentence, then you have left the Reformers' doctrine of abandonment as a reason for divorce and remarriage. But with "her who is abandoned is", one could refer to any abandoned woman. "Whoever takes a divorced woman ...", can refer to whether she is guilty of divorce. Theologian Tom G A Hardt in St. Martin's parish in Stockholm, told me on the phone, that "they have made up for it". Both are guilty. Then this place would be a special case, according to him. I think Martin Schemnitz's statement "she will sleep with married men" is a better interpretation.
The main place
Another Jesus word, which is a capital, is Matt. 19: 9 "Whosoever committeth adultery with his wife, and committeth adultery with another man's wife, committeth adultery." Here Jesus explicitly says that the exception for fornication also applies to the remarried. If you divorce because of adultery, you do not commit adultery if you remarry. If a man divorces and abandons his wife, without sufficient reason, he is as guilty if he remains alone as if he remarries. Then one can draw the sensible conclusion that even divorce gives the right to remarry. Marriage is a worldly thing, which we can understand with our reason and the natural law that everyone has in their heart through creation. Then you have to interpret Matt. 5:32 based on this sensible conclusion, that you are just as guilty if you abandon and divorce and remain alone, as if you get a new partner. Tom G A loudly told me on the phone that "divorce is fornication". The duty of marriage is to give each other their bodies. 1 Cor. 7: 3-4 Failure to do so may lead to fornication for those who do not have the gift of living abstinently. Then all kinds of abandonment become fornication, even if you are so difficult that you force the other to move. If fornication refers to "forbidden joints", then one must include repeated fornication in abandonment.
Practical problems
It becomes even more unreasonable if one thinks that divorce or abandonment is just the legal divorce. If one spouse abandons and moves, but does not divorce, he or she would not be allowed to file for divorce if she did not do so first. Then he can not force a division of property if she does not agree to it voluntarily. He gets nothing from the joint matrimonial property, if the house is on her. If he wants to apply for housing allowance, both incomes are included in the application, even though they do not live together. In the Roman Church, it is resolved to allow a civil divorce. It goes without saying that all kinds of abandonment are divorce. Before, they ran away and hid. The reformers consider this to be the same as divorce. Then you have already departed from the legal as the only reason. If you are so difficult that you force the other to move, it is worse than if you divorce and move yourself. You have to think something yourself and not just read old church ordinances and church laws from the 15th and 17th centuries, when you lived in a different society, with a government that yvinged those who were too difficult to improve.
Difficult to interpret places
There are some passages in the Bible that can be difficult to interpret. Matt. 5:32 has caused problems for many. What most people do not know is how Martin Luther and Martin Schemnitz interpreted this place. Martin Schemnitz translated "He makes her an adulterer" and then says that she will sleep with married men, when she is divorced. Not all divorced women became adulterers, but some could. A Jewish divorced woman had a hard time finding a new husband to marry. Then there was a great risk that she slept with married men, because there were hardly any unmarried men. It was the duty of everyone to marry and multiply. The 1917 Bible translates Matt. 5:32 "he becomes the cause of adultery with her" and it is then meant that adultery is in passive form and means to "be exposed to adultery". Then it should be translated "he becomes the cause of adultery against her". If it is he who commits this adultery, it became clearer if Jesus had said "He commits adultery against her." Can even mean receive? Some say it can be translated: "He causes her to fall victim to adultery". (by himself) All translations bear traces of how the translators think. In the Bible of Charles XII, it is translated "He who takes her as abandoned is committing adultery." Matthew 5:32 If by her you mean the same woman as in the previous sentence, then you have left the Reformers' doctrine of abandonment as a reason for divorce and remarriage. But with "her who is abandoned is", one could refer to any abandoned woman. "Whoever takes a divorced woman ...", can refer to whether she is guilty of divorce. Theologian Tom G A Hardt in St. Martin's parish in Stockholm, told me on the phone, that "they have made up for it". Both are guilty. Then this place would be a special case, according to him. I think Martin Schemnitz's statement "she will sleep with married men" is a better interpretation.
The main place
Another Jesus word, which is a capital, is Matt. 19: 9 "Whosoever committeth adultery with his wife, and committeth adultery with another man's wife, committeth adultery." Here Jesus explicitly says that the exception for fornication also applies to the remarried. If you divorce because of adultery, you do not commit adultery if you remarry. If a man divorces and abandons his wife, without sufficient reason, he is as guilty if he remains alone as if he remarries. Then one can draw the sensible conclusion that even divorce gives the right to remarry. Marriage is a worldly thing, which we can understand with our reason and the natural law that everyone has in their heart through creation. Then you have to interpret Matt. 5:32 based on this sensible conclusion, that you are just as guilty if you abandon and divorce and remain alone, as if you get a new partner. Tom G A loudly told me on the phone that "divorce is fornication". The duty of marriage is to give each other their bodies. 1 Cor. 7: 3-4 Failure to do so may lead to fornication for those who do not have the gift of living abstinently. Then all kinds of abandonment become fornication, even if you are so difficult that you force the other to move. If fornication refers to "forbidden joints", then one must include repeated fornication in abandonment.
Practical problems
It becomes even more unreasonable if one thinks that divorce or abandonment is just the legal divorce. If one spouse abandons and moves, but does not divorce, he or she would not be allowed to file for divorce if she did not do so first. Then he can not force a division of property if she does not agree to it voluntarily. He gets nothing from the joint matrimonial property, if the house is on her. If he wants to apply for housing allowance, both incomes are included in the application, even though they do not live together. In the Roman Church, it is resolved to allow a civil divorce. It goes without saying that all kinds of abandonment are divorce. Before, they ran away and hid. The reformers consider this to be the same as divorce. Then you have already departed from the legal as the only reason. If you are so difficult that you force the other to move, it is worse than if you divorce and move yourself. You have to think something yourself and not just read old church ordinances and church laws from the 15th and 17th centuries, when you lived in a different society, with a government that yvinged those who were too difficult to improve.
If the marriage were insoluble, it would cause problems. In the big cities, two thirds of those who get married are divorced. Most of these become cohabitants. Many have been living together for 20-30 years. Would they have to leave each other if they became Christians? Some priests think it will work out, because only one party becomes a Christian and then the other spouse leaves him. Why can't both become Christians? You do not want to leave someone you have lived with for 30 years and the Christian wants nothing better than for the other to also become a Christian. How long must they have been cohabiting in order to stay and get married? Some priests believe that cohabitation with children is a marriage-like relationship and then they get married. Why are children the only thing that makes them like each other? Is it not contrary to the commandment of love to tear apart solid relationships, which have existed for a long time? There are those who are divorced and have had the company of a new partner for many years and are engaged. Some people have been engaged for 40 years. Should they leave each other if they become Christians? It will be something to drink on. Some priests do not believe that those who are divorced and cohabiting can become Christians. In Mission countries, there are those who have several wives. They are not baptized if they live in polygamy. Does he have to choose the first wife? As I see it, you have to choose the least evil or the most good.
Fornication and divorce
When Jesus says that fornication is the only exception, when one is allowed to divorce, he chooses between "any cause" as Rabbi Hillel meant and "only fornication" as others meant. Jesus distanced himself from "any cause" and chose from these two alternatives Shamai's view "mere fornication". Jesus may also have meant "forbidden passages". But fornication was not the only reason. The second reason is divorce 1 Cor 7:15 or "malicious abandonment". By malice is meant the person who caused the divorce. Abandonment is then all the reasons when it becomes too difficult to live together, even mental abuse. Martin Cemnitz, who lived in another sanctuary with Christian authority, did not understand. Such abuse can be difficult to prove. What do you do then so that a new partner can know that there were sufficient reasons. Yes, fornication can not be proven either. Today you can not take anyone for granted. You have to believe what you say. Only they themselves know what it has been like. Even a priest can not arrive at that with certainty when he tries to mediate. Fornication can also refer to forbidden paths. See above. Then one must abandon what Luther says about what fornication is. One must let go of the idea that Luther and the Book of Concord are infallible. A priest told me that "you have rejected the book of concord". Then fornication once is not enough to get divorced. Like all other reasons, the separation must have been "permanent" or lasted for some time. It was formerly called "deep and lasting division".
Innocent party
I have heard pastors who say that the guilty party may never remarry, even if it is not possible to go back, because the innocent party remarried or does not want to take back the guilty party. Such an interpretation is highly immature and fanatical. Yet it is emphasized that not all people have the gift of living alone. In that case, does that also apply to the guilty party, if it is not possible to go back? Some priests say: "Why should you know it. Should you arrange the marriage of others. The priest must do that. How else will he be able to use the loose and the binding keys?" David Instone Brewer says in his book that only the circumstances that make it too difficult to live together are known only to themselves. The priest can not know. He must then leave his arrogant thought and his belief in being able to know and decide everything. The priest can in this case be the biggest obstacle to a good solution.
Tom G A loudly told me on the phone that "divorce is fornication". The duty of marriage is to give each other their bodies. 1 Cor. 7: 3-4 Failure to do so may lead to fornication for those who do not have the gift of living abstinently. Then all kinds of abandonment become fornication, even if you are so difficult to live with that you force the other to move. If one party moves without divorce, it must be the same as if he divorces and moves. It is the cause of divorce that God hates and which is the divorce itself, not just the legal application for divorce. If other people thought as little as some theologians do, how would society work? If he is instead so difficult that he forces her to move, it is the same as if he himself had moved.
Separation of property
Without a divorce, you can not request a "difference of residence by force" from the District Court. Living difference is a voluntary agreement. Without divorce, you lose the right to marry. The Roman Church therefore allows legal divorces and even civil marriages for divorcees. But they are not counted as valid before God. They only apply legally in society. This solves practical problems. The Lutherans believe that a civil divorce or marriage is valid before God. Then one must allow divorce on the grounds of "abandonment", in order for one of the parties to have his or her right to marry. The man may have worked together for a villa written on him, but she has been a housewife and contributed to the livelihood by taking care of the home. Then she should get half of the house. If you are not allowed to divorce when a party leaves without filing for divorce, you cannot force a divorce and you will be without the right to marry. If he leaves her, it's the same as if he divorced. It would then be strange if she was not allowed to file the legal divorce. If he is too difficult to force her to leave, it is the same as if he left her and she has the right to file for divorce.
Other disputed Bible passages
Are there any more places that are difficult to interpret. Deut. 5:24: 1-4 is the most controversial place in the GT among Rabbis. What is meant by: "Since she has defiled herself", verse 4? One can imagine that leading or uneasiness refers to a serious moral error, which makes her to blame for the divorce. One must always think so "if she is guilty". Then Moses says that she committed adultery when she remarried, if she was guilty of divorce. The same is true in Matt. 5:32 "He who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." One has to think if she has either been immoral or "too difficult" to live with. "So a married woman is bound by law to her husband, as long as he lives." Gypsy. 7: 2 In Israel the woman could not divorce. Civil law prevented her from doing so. In the lands where the woman could divorce, she was, according to God's word, bound to her husband anyway, unless he was immoral, divorced, or "too difficult." In GT there are no exceptions described as far as I know. Actually, the Bible does not need to make any exceptions. It goes without saying that the innocent party is always right. After all, we can read all over the Bible that God is just. Within the Roman Church it is often said that if the apostles taught, the Church would have known. But the Roman Church was early apostate and had no contact with the apostles. Peter was not the first pope. It's just a legend they invented themselves.
David Instone Brewer
David Instone Brewer has published a book on divorce and remarriage in the church (234 pages), which has been translated into Swedish.
He also has a website. https://tyndalehouse.com/staff/david-instone-brewer
You can buy his book at: https://eldsflamman.se/skilsmassa-och-omgifte-i-kyrkan-david-instone-brewer___pid4091.html
David Instone Brewer is based on Exodus. 21:10 There is talk of a man taking another wife. Then he must give the former food, clothes and marriage rights. Otherwise he must release her without compensation. The woman was then entitled to divorce. Brewer believes that the Rabbis developed this principle in the Talmud. When the temple was destroyed in 70, these writings were lost, but new writings were found in the Qumran caves on the Dead Sea in 1947. According to Moses, the husband was obliged to give his wife the right to marry. Brewer believes that this right includes affection and consideration. He could not treat her anyway. Then she could demand a divorce from him. If the husband is too hard on his wife, she was entitled to divorce and remarriage.
Inge Rogesund
