Customer Reviews

Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views (Spectrum Multiview Book Series Spectrum Multiview Book Serie)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The Rev. Fr. Johann W. Vanderbijl III

My mother divorced her first husband because he beat her repeatedly and severely. (He evidently did the same thing to his second wife, allegedly attempting to strangle her in front of my older half-brother.) She was excommunicated by the Church of England for doing so, an act that caused her to lose her faith for a long period of time. Nonetheless, she did get remarried to my father and I am the second of their two children. All this to say that I must admit that I approach any book on divorce and remarriage with a certain presupposition firmly in place - just like the four different writers. Perhaps it is best to be up front about the myth of total objectivity and at least be honest with regard to one's particular slant. Having said that, I agree with all of the writers that the Scriptures must be allowed to speak for themselves and in trying to find a solution to this very emotional and difficult subject one must strive to be as objective as possible, however hard that may be.

Some of the basic principles of biblical interpretation that I was taught at seminary involve:

1) a determination to use the whole of God's revelation (and to avoid like the plague the temptation to use only texts that support your particular view or, worse, to use one part of Scripture to contradict another - there are many forms of this, one of which is to assign the offending portion to a later redactor or editor and another is to repeat ad nauseum that this is the ONLY place that the "exception" is to be found, giving the impression that the "exception" may be explained away in one or other fashion) in an attempt to present a studied and balanced conclusion of all the biblical data (Edgar makes an excellent case in his reply to Laney's chapter on page 62: "Any adequate analysis of Scripture on this subject must be based on all the passages. All the passages must be allowed to speak and must speak in harmony with all the others. To interpret some as if the others did not exist, and to then use the resulting interpretation as the basis to deny the explicit statements (exceptions) of those not originally taken into consideration is not really basing one's view on Scripture. It is instead a selection of passages which, taken by themselves, seem to fit the interpreter's presuppositions and then using these to get rid of those passages containing specific statements contrary to the interpreter's presuppositions.");

2) a determination to interpret a passage within the larger and more immediate context within it's own historical sitz-im-leben;

3) a determination to prefer the most obvious interpretation rather than to perform amazing feats of mental and exegetical gymnastics to prove that some obscure meaning at the far end of the semantic range of the word in question is really what the author meant to say.

and 4) a determination not to base one's argument on silence. In other words, the fact that text does not say anything about a specific subject (either affirming or denying) does not mean that it is open season for interpreters to shoot down another's reluctance to be dogmatic. Deuteronomy 29:29 says: "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." That which is revealed is sufficient for us to live godly lives...speculating on that which has not been revealed is moving into areas where we may wander if we wish, but only with extreme caution.

Another thing to avoid is emotionalism. Just because my mother was divorced and remarried doesn't make it biblical. So it unhelpful to ask questions like: "Does God expect the battered wife to remain, waiting helplessly for the next outburst of fury? Does God expect the victim of constant verbal abuse from a spouse who can only prop him or herself up by cutting down the partner, to continue being diminished and demeaned?" (cf. p. 69) Questions such as these tend to cloud the issue and bring in more confusion than clarity. In short, we are to be as honest as possible and to avoid any form of deceit no matter how well meaning our intentions may seem to be.

Having said this, how do the four different writers (J. Carl Laney: No Divorce and No Remarriage; William Heth: Divorce, but no Remarriage; Thomas R. Edgar: Divorce and Remarriage for Adultery or Desertion; Larry Richards: Divorce and Remarriage under a Variety of Circumstances) handle the biblical text in their various attempts to arrive at their respective conclusions? They all seem to agree that God's original intension for Man was for marriage to be a permanent bond between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:20-25). It is from the Fall on that their views on the indissolubility of marriage, impropriety in marriage (mixed marriages, adultery, abuse, desertion, and so on), divorce and remarriage go in different directions. St. Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-11 (the two times an exception is made with regard to ideal permanence of marriage) seem to be the field most fought over. Laney seems to put a lot of stock in the fact that the New Testament authors had different audiences...yet, when all the biblical passages (which really have only one Author) are used harmoniously and as complementing each other, this argument is hardly worth the paper it is written on. The absence of the exception clause in Sts. Mark and Luke is no different to the absence of the birth narrative in St. John...or to the absence of the Magi in all the Gospels save St. Matthew. Laney's argument (cf. especially his comments on page 199) seems to support a situational type of ethic in which the audience influenced the moral instruction written to them by the Apostles.

Each writer also references Deuteronomy 24 and they apparently agree that the law seems to be regulating the present practice of divorce. The fact that Jesus actually says as much in St. Matthew 19 is not disputed. It is the exception clause that seems to be the real stickler.

The comparing of Ezra 9 and 10 and 1 Corinthians 7 also seemed to raise problems as the writers struggled to deal with the historical situation leading up the act of "putting away".

What is interesting (if not bewildering, especially for the lay reader!) is the way they explore the meaning and semantic range of certain words such as "cleave", "put away", "not bound" and "porneia". Clearly their language skills are pitted towards their own interpretations!

Another particular beef of mine is how writers tend to use the Early Church Fathers or the Reformers to back up their interpretations. They either seem to indicate that there was perfect unity and agreement amongst these our esteemed forerunners or they write them off completely as having fallen into error if they do not agree with them or they use only one part of their interpretation while ignoring the other side of the same coin. Laney is a good example of this last tendency. On page 38 he writes: "While the church fathers held that divorce was permitted for adultery...they did not interpret the exception clause to allow for remarriage. This interpretation of the divorce texts remained the standard view of the church in the West until the sixteenth century when Erasmus suggested that the "innocent" spouse had the right not only to divorce, but also to contract a new marriage." In other words, it seems Laney is using the lack of teaching on the "exception clause" in the Early Church to support his view against remarriage. But he shoots himself in the foot when he adds: It is significant that those who had the closest contact with the language and culture of the New Testament did not regard the exception to apply to remarriage." Thus his own argument can be used against his view on divorce.

Traditions and commentators throughout the Ages are marvellous aids that help us in our search for proper biblical understanding and application, but they are only aids and should never be used (or abused) as evidence against the Scriptures themselves. Edgar speaks to this on page 136: "I do not agree that quotation of other's opinions is adequate basis for argument. They must be proven by exegetical arguments...Theology can only arise from an exegesis and harmonizing of all the passages on a given subject"


The writers of this book all claim to use the Scriptures. They all refer to and deal with the same texts, either in their own chapters or in their response to each other. And yet they still arrive at radically different views. None of them believe this is due to the fault of Scripture (although Laney's problem with the exception clause comes dangerously close) - they all blame the other's faulty exegetical methods. In this, they are most probably correct. Thus it is left up to the reader, bless his or her heart, to figure out for themselves, using the basic exegetical rules outlined above, which one of the writers deals most honestly with all the biblical data before them.


Without having read any other material by these four writers, I can only base my conclusions on what they have written here in this book. It seems to me that Edgar strives to deal most faithfully with the biblical text, steering clear of an emotionalism evident in Richards and exegetical gymnastics or outright denial as in the case of Laney and Heth. Although both Heth and Edgar allow for a biblical divorce (Richards seems to hold that both divorce and remarriage is wrong, but, as we live in a sinful world, we should simply seek forgiveness and move on - that may be an over simplification of his view, but that's what he seems to be saying here), Edgar alone seems to fulfil all the criteria for proper hermeneutics, taking into consideration all that has been written on the topic in Scripture, comparing the various scriptures with each other being careful not to make one contradict the other, taking into consideration their different historical situations, always preferring the clear meaning of the text rather than looking for obscure possible translations to bolster his view, and finally he does not base his position on the silence of some of the texts.

I was looking for a book to assist me in finding God's direction and "perfect" will for my life. After almost 30 years of marriage my husband has left me and we've been separated for 1 1/2 years. (I couldn't agree to irreconcilable differences. To sign an agreement like that would be like lying...I believe God can reconcile any situation.) We will be separated 2 yrs. in October and he will divorce me without my permission (Illinois Law). I need (desperately)to find where, in the eyes of God, this leaves me.

I had hoped to receive insight from this book. However, I found it very difficult to follow (as a layperson). I think it is too "deep" (going way too far into the discussion of the Greek, Hebrew, Latin...inflection of words and phrases). I was looking for something a bit more practical easier to follow.

This would be a good book for a pastor's study or a Christian counselor/educator....but my personal opinion is that it really was not benefical to me .... I needed direction, wisdom, and guidance...and I didn't find it there. Several times I prayed for God to "focus" my thinking and help me to understand and to see, through the Holy Spirit, the direction and guidance I was trying to find. The more I read, the more frustrated I became.

I am a reasonably well rounded and well-educated person, but I felt this book was too difficult to follow and that each primary chapter (or point of view) was too long and it belabored each point.

Sorry....

A well written book in which four sincere, intelligent conservative Christians extract biblical passages in support of four completely different views on divorce and remarriage. No consensus appears to be possible on this topic. Each of the authors's cases appear quite strong. A frustrating book if the reader is looking for a single belief concerning divorce and remarriage. An excellent review of the ambiguity of the Bible on these two topics.

The more I know about God and His written Word, the more I know that I don't know as I ought to know. Even the Bible cannot clearly and totally describe God because God is much bigger than words can express. Am I questioning the Bible? Absolutely not! But no human words, howbeit inspired by the Holy Spirit, can paint a picture of who God is. And if God is not easily describable, then it is logically accepted that everything related with God is as hard or impossible to describe in its fullness.

Why using too many words to get my point across? Why not go straight to the point and clearly state the issue of divorce and remarriage? The reason is simple: there are no straight and clear points concerning these two issues. The reason is that marriage is made of two different people with different backgrounds (spiritual, educational, moral, cultural, and mental) and they come into marriage with two different views of how marriage should function in order to be successful and lasting.

Divorce and remarriage are two subjects that are best dealt with in a case-by-case basis because of the differences issue mentioned above and because of the circumstances that are facing those who are contemplating divorce and/or remarriage.

J. Carl Laney
Concerning divorce and remarriage, Mr. Laney states, "But often the issues [divorce and remarriage] are confused by personal feelings, experiences and emotions." We must understand that though this statement carries some weight on these two issues (D&R for now on); feelings, experiences and emotions cannot or should not be discarded totally because many times God may speak through them to us. Mr. Laney, in my defense to him states that "Any biblical study of divorce must begin with a consideration of God's original plan for marriage." Concerning Genesis 2:24, he also states that "This foundational passage reveals that marriage was divinely designed and instituted as a lifelong relationship." I could not agree more with Mr. Laney. It is imperative that any Bible student seriously consider going to the beginnings of human history and reflect on God's design for man and woman to live as one. There has to be a standard and Mr. Laney did a great job pointing us to it on his essay. However, we must understand that such standard was set by an infallible and perfect being (God) for a fallible people to follow.

To limit D&R to only two reasons (adultery and death) is limiting God's grace. What should a man or woman do if they are "burning" within themselves after getting a divorce? Paul states, "So I say to those who aren't married and to widows--it's better to stay unmarried, just as I am. But if they can't control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It's better to marry than to burn with lust." Isn't a divorced person an unmarried person or a person who is not married? This argument is similar to the one concerning the "requirements" Paul gave to Timothy for someone who may consider becoming a bishop. Paul states (emphasis mine), "An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money." Isn't a remarried man the husband of one wife?

Though I strongly disagree in limiting divorce to just two circumstances, I must agree with Mr. Laney when he stated that we must be careful with divorce situations in the Bible such as the one with Ezra and the people of Israel lest we draw a doctrine, possibly an erroneous one, from a story which purpose was perhaps to inform us what a man of God did in order to steer God's people back to Him.

William A. Heth
Mr. Heth kind of came near of what he believes the Bible teaches: Yes for divorce in the case of adultery and No for remarriage except for the case for widows and widowers. I found out that Christians judge people from their strength to the weakness of those they cast judgment on. It is in our blood. I have no doubt (75% certain) that Mr. Heth is probably married and has never been divorced. Experience has shown me that when we contend for the "faith" concerning a particular subject, we gave our all when we are not guilty of the very thing we are contending for. For example, if I don't struggle with pornography, it probably easier for me to condemn and harshly judge others who do struggle with it. On the other hand, if I do struggle with pornography, it is likely, or it should be, that I tend to show kindness and compassion towards those who struggle with it because I have an understanding of what it is to be bound by it.

Mr. Heth presents a case of a man he named Jack whose wife left him 15 years ago. He raised his children and he is a man of God who, along with a widow named Sarah, is involved in making disciples out of young believers. The issue arises when Sarah and Jack are spending time together to the point that they like each other. Both give testimony that they are God's people. It seems that they like each other to the point of starting a family. Though we can't go by feelings alone, we can't totally discard them either. Mr. Heth would not marry them because of his own personal convictions, and that is alright. But I think he should go an extra mile and, instead of relying on a personal conviction towards all remarriages, he should consider seeking the Lord for discernment for every odd situation he may face concerning D&R. What I liked from Mr. Heth is that he does not presume to tell or dictate people under his care what they should do concerning D&R. He is wise in presenting his views and letting his hearers decide what they will do.

Thomas R. Edgar
One of the views I like from Mr. Edgar is that those who have different views on D&R cannot blindly accept the patristic view by the church fathers because they too were frequently unreliable in such matters. In other words, we cannot rely totally or blindly on the history and/or experiences of past Christians because they were fallible humans just as we are, too. No one, not even the Apostle Paul, does not or did not have the monopoly or the whole counsel of God. Even Peter (referring to Paul's writings) and even Paul (referring to the mystery of the gospel) did not understand many of the things related to God, and they recognized that.

On the other hand, I felt as though Mr. Edgar was executing an attack, as Mr. Laney stated, on those views or people who subscribe to a view different than his. It is as though he was saying, "My way or the wrong way."

Larry Richards
For personal reasons, I seem to go with Mr. Richards on the issue of D&R. The reason is that he seems to show much mercy and grace towards those who divorce and/or remarry. He stated, "What do Jesus' words `Moses permitted you to divorce because your hearts were hard' imply? Simply that God, in grace, has taken the warping of humankind into account. He gave his permission in Moses' Law for human beings to take a course of action which actually goes against his own ideal."

The so called Moses' Law was given by God and that makes it God's Law even if it goes against His own ideal, in this case, of what marriage should be.

Conclusion
It is the prayerful life coupled with constant Bible study, and guidance and discernment from the Holy Spirit that could give the correct and necessary advice to someone in a D&R situation. The D&R is as clear as mud for the most part when dealing with specific situations. The Bible is not a set of rules or do's and don'ts. It is a set of books inspired by God and only He can give us the meaning and the correct path to follow in D&R issues in the event we may go through it or in the event others experience them.

Maybe I missed it, overlooked it, or did not understand it, but all four authors missed a very important point on D&R. They all used Mark 10:9 but they did not point out that, though God designed marriage, He does not join every person in marriage. A person can marry another person knowing that such a marriage is against the will of God. If they divorce, it is as though the marriage never existed since it was consummated outside the will of God.

One more thing, if it's logical to think that having sex with a prostitute makes me "one flesh" with her in God's eyes, then it is logical to think that sex consummates marriage. But, who will have the guts to say the being "one flesh" with a prostitute was joined together by God? I know that marriage is much more than sex, but the "one flesh" issue, in marriage or joining oneself with a prostitute, is birthed by the sex act. At the end, I have come to the conclusion that I must seek first the face of the One who inspired the Scriptures and ask Him to guide me, especially on issues related to D&R.

In some ways this book is incredibly amusing. The four writers hold radically different views (no divorce and no remarriage; divorce but no remarriage; divorce and remarriage for adultery and desertion; and divorce and remarriage under a variety of circumstances). They not only give one presentation of their own views but get to comment on the presentations of the others. You may come away from the book slightly light-headed, but the format ensures that no-one gets away without criticism. The funny bit is that, although the writers are all fundamentally opposed to each other's interpretations, they all go out of the way to be really nice about each other first. It's like "Mr X is an incredibly nice man and a good Christian - I am now going to show you how he allows people to commit adultery and leads millions astray."

There are a couple of dangers of having such a book. One is that you may be trying to decide which of the four writers is right. Don't forget the option that they may all have valid points to make, but that the truth might be a fifth explanation that none of them would entirely agree with. The second is that all the arguments, some of them finely constructed, may discourage you from being able to find the truth. Remember, just because some Christians make it sound complicated, doesn't mean that it isn't actually simple and understandable.

This book provides substantial chapters by four evangelical theologians on their interpretations on Biblical passages relating to divorce and remarriage. Chapters include a case study. Each author also writes a brief but pointed response to the other authors' chapters. All four authors base their views on Biblical exegesis and Biblical theology. They all have high regard for Scripture, church tradition and scholarly input from others. Each is given the task of defending their own interpretation which is different than the others'.

I enjoyed reading the book and think each author writes well and provides persuasive arguments. Unfortunately, the format of the book and the subtle nuances of the authors leads to an ambiguous conclusion on both divorce and remarriage.

There seems to be two themes in this book: the interpretation of the Scripture and the pragmatic pastoral response to real life situations. Even Dr. Laney who believes and argues well that the Bible does not allow for divorce or remarriage admits what is required is grace and mercy in dealing with those who may need to divorce or who will remarry, as he seems to imply that of course there are cases where divorce and even remarriage are justified and favorable. The other authors also provide confusing statements related to pastoral practice that conflicts with their Biblical exegesis.

Larry Richards who supposedly argues that divorce and remarriage are permitted also writes that both are also sins in all cases, so what is a reader supposed to determine from that? The differences in opinions often rest on different syntactical readings of Greek text and differing interpretations of Hebrew text. None of these are worthy arguments on which to base doctrine, especially when the bottom line here is not theory or theology but real people who need clarity and direction by pastors.

The benefit from this book is for pastors or counselors who will be providing care to people regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage. Readers will see the various Scripture interpretations informing doctrines. But more than anything will see why it is important to seek God's guidance and love and compassion for each single case.

Another fault with this book is the negligence on discussing God's character rather than focusing on the exegesis of particular text. I would have appreciated spending more time discussing how God interacts with people in crisis and deals with their weakness, failings, sins and desires. For example, how does Jesus' treatment of the Sabbath relate to his consideration of this topic? Or Paul's treatment of works v. grace relate to marriage. The book focused on particular passages rather than themes in Scripture.

Readers will gain a higher regard for the sacrament or union of marriage and will not tread into these decisions lightly. The authors all make God's high view and sanctity of marriage clear.

The bottom line for me, someone in seminary to become a priest, is that I'm glad I read this book. It was enlightening and I would recommend it for other ministers. However, it does not clarify the topic, and I would not recommend for people looking for clarity or personal direction regarding divorce and remarriage.

As a man with multiple college degrees in difficult areas and one not generally scared of an obscure or even obtuse volume, I must admit that this little book had me utterly cowed on the first reading. It is divided into four sections on each of four views of divorce and/or remarriage, and when it is permissible for the diligent Christian.

The first two sections (supporting the views that all divorce is prohibited to the Believer and that divorce may be allowed but remarriage never is) were very hard to follow. Upon the third reading, it became quite clear where the two contributors to this collaborative work were going and how they intended to get there, but the exegesis used to support the path for their respective journeys was just a little too hard for me to understand. As a non-expert in the matter of biblical languages, that is not great cause for surprise, since many key points hinge upon fine nuances of Greek or in some cases, upon the juxtaposition of Greek passages from the Septuagint with the corresponding Hebrew from the Masoretic texts. More suprising is that in a couple of instances, my biblical Greek instructor (who strongly advocates the second view) could not follow the subtleties of these arguments either, nor could others who have taught or tutored Greek.

The third section (which is closer to my own view) was a lot more lucid than the first, but contained no clinching arguments, and if anything left me less warm to this point of view after I finished the chapter than before I had started.

The fourth section (which if I had to pick only one view for all situations is the view I most closely hold to, at least when put into practice with caution, restraint, and face-to-face accountability with someone well-equipped to play "devil's advocate") was also pretty lucid, but the arguments were in places pretty superficial and not able to stand the scrutiny to which they were subjected by the other three writers (or even then scrutinies of me - a rather sympathetic reader).

Each writer had space to comment on the main points of the other three. This is often helpful in volumes such as these, but in this case, most of the "rebuttal" arguments were spent on merely restating the writers own view, rather than directly engaging the other writers or trying to directly rebut their facts, logic, or conclusions.

I would recommend this book to a scholar who has a strong stomach (while the tone of the rhetoric is pleasant, cordial, and professional, its content is intellectually frustrating in places), a strong interest in the subject matter, and a competant if not strong knowledge of Koine and LXX Greek and basic Hebrew. Others would be better served by other volumes.

The one aspect of this book that was helpful to me and which I think would be helpful to any pastor or counsellor working with broken or estranged marriages and families is the little exercise that each writer is required to address at the end of their dissertaion as an appendix. The exercise presents each writer with a hypothetical scenario (I would imagine this scenario to be a composite that the editor put together from real people he had actually counselled) of a person faced with an imminent divorce and asks them to provide counsel in written form. This makes clear how each author applies their scholarship in a plausible scenario and shows what it may mean to real people whom Christ loves.

I give the book 3 stars, but with the caution that it could be a 5-star to some readers and a pure loser to others.

I was raised in the Episcopal Church but now am more of a Baptist/Southeastern Mennonite.

Excellent written book very thorough in the 4 views, but not very thorough in that there is another view they did not debate; it my biggest disappointment that all views were not debated. The 5th View was not hardly even addressed, most likely because it is not at all popular and most do not know it even exist. Like being brainwashed by Evolution because you never even heard that there was such a thing as Creation science. (I was there too)

The view they hardly mention is where all remarriages, without the death of the mate, are continuos adultery and most of all are not recognized by GOD. The Book "Till Death Do Us Part?" by Dr. Joseph Webb addresses this 5th view very well. He also had another book "Divorce and Remarriage: The Trojan Horse Within the Church". Let me say I do not like the view myself and I don't want to believe it; but it is now my conviction .

I was really hoping that this book with the 4 views might have shed some light on the subject; but I think only Laney just barley touched on it and dismissed it. I really did like his comment in the book where he stated "Smacks of License". I would really have liked one of the views in the book to be this 5th view, so I might have an argument against it.

I am closer to the view of no remarriage until the Death of the mate even if they have remarried; but that just leave one trapped in the Limbo of being single for life (as one of the other authors basically stated). I don't want to believe that either, but I do believe that, I am still married to my wife who has "remarried" as it were. So in general society thinks that once the minister or Judge says "Hocus Pocus" that the old marriage is no more and a new one is made... at least as far as the laws of the land is concerned; but what does a HOLY GOD see it as? Rom 7:1-3 There are several books on it at [...] where the focus of the website is on this 5th view.

I was on the very liberal side of divorce and remarriage before. I really would like to believe that I am free from and abusive marriage that I am/was in. I am under strong conviction now that I am still married to my "X"-wife and that I have to wait for her to repent of her adulterous remarriage and come back to me. It's a very lonely and a hard road to go down. I was a virgin when we married and she lied to me about her passed. No children and I am to stay celibate for life, unless she forsakes her sinful "remarriage" and comes back. She is a physically beautiful woman but her Bi-polar personality tortures my soul and I really would like to move on; but I stand alone.

This book explains four major views of divorce and remarriage within a narrow stream of evangelicalism. Not only are the four views explained, but the authors of opposing viewpoints are allowed to reply and respond. This book will help Christian leaders, particularly those serving as volunteer leaders, determine their position on these issues.

Good book. It's interesting to note that Heth has actually reversed his position to actually allow for re-marriage under select circumstances. see three views on divorce and remarriage.

so, the second author would by and large disagree with most of his own essay in this book.