Customer Reviews

Divorce and Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This was an excellent book on the title topic. One of the problems I see facing the church today is so many divorces. Historically there have been two views about divorce among Christians: 1. No divorce whatever (which is flatly wrong biblically) and 2. Divorce only for sexual immorality. I have always wondered why God would force someone to stay married to an abusive spouse, and now the answer is made plain by the author of this book. His scholarly research and objective analysis proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that God has always permitted divorce from an abusive spouse. I highly recommend this book to Pastors, Biblical Counselors and anyone else dealing with marriage and divorce problems in the Church.

This is an "easier to read" version of Dr. Instone-Brewer's comprehensive study titled "Divorce and Remarriage: The Social and Literary Context". There are some verses that can be and have been used to condemn Christians in this area, read this book and get the "inside scoop" about what those perplexing verses really meant to the original readers.

David Instone-Brewer's book, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church, offers a fresh approach to the issue of divorce and remarriage. Unlike traditional interpretation, Instone-Brewer argues that the Bible not only allows divorce on the ground of adultery, but also other grounds such as violence. By using his knowledge of the customs of the first century Palestine, he claims that the traditional interpretation has misread the relevant biblical passages. In this review, I will attempt to examine whether his argument is convincing or not.
Praise
One of the most helpful advices Instone-Brewer (I-B) gives in this book is for the church not to judge who is guilty or who is innocent in a divorce. (p. 114) Outsiders are really incapable of making such judgment. In most cases, there is no one who is completely innocent or guilty. The church should teach them principles about marriages, and let them deal with their sins before God. Even in instances where reconciliation is impossible, forgiveness should be granted. In practical situations, however, I-B leaves a loophole untreated. He says, "... a believer should only divorce if they have biblical grounds ... and that all divorcees may remarry unless their innocent ex-partner wants a reconciliation." (p. 159) But how does the church decide if the ex-partner is innocent or not? It is a problem that needs to be resolved, but I-B does not get into.
Thanks to his research, I-B clears up a lot of misunderstandings of the first century Palestinian cultural values. Remarriage was clearly allowed then, but later generations interpreted the silence of the Scripture to mean prohibition of remarriage. To aid his argument, in Chapter Seven, I-B offers a strong case against the idea that marriage relationship always lasts lifelong. He mentions several passages that have been traditionally used to argue for the permanence of marriage and prohibition of remarriage except in cases of death of the partner, and repudiates such interpretation.
Regarding the criteria for a valid divorce, I have some criticisms, which are presented below.
Criticism
I-B says that after his Ph.D. work, he has become aware of the cultural background of the NT Bible, and thus can read relevant biblical passages in a different light, and his findings make sense to him. He offers an example in Chap. One. Churches have been saying that Jesus said, "Those whom God has joined, no man can separate." But he could not find it in the Bible. Instead, the Bible says, "let no one separate." (Matt. 19:6) Thus divorce is possible, but discouraged, and divorce is simply recognizing the reality of the broken marriage vows, thus no guilt should be put on the victim who initiates divorce.
I have several responses. First, there are not many churches that claim that marriage is permanent, as I-B implies. Most of them recognize that marriage ends upon death or can end upon adultery. Secondly, though I agree that victim should not be blamed for initiating divorce, this is not a necessary conclusion of Matt. 19:6. One can still use the correct understanding of it to discourage the victim from divorce (let no one separate, including the victim). Thirdly, in later chapters, I-B still encourages the victim to seek reconciliation and offer forgiveness to save marriage. So, in some sense, divorce is a positive action that actually changes something, not just recognizing something that has happened already.
In Chapter Three, I-B appeals to Ex. 21:10-11 for three grounds for divorce other than adultery. I-B acknowledges that this section is about female slaves being taken as wives, but he argues that we need to look for principles in this case law. What I-B does not mention, is that this text is not interested in defining valid divorce between two equals, but the right of slaves, who are seen as properties. In 21:4, a divorce is not only permitted, but required when a male slave goes free. This divorce is not preconditioned by the fault of either spouse, but by the fact that the slave's wife (supposedly another female slave) is the master's property. This case law finds no application in today's marriage because we are not someone else's slaves. Thus, marriage between or with slaves is of different sort than regular marriages.
Slaves desire to be free, and Moses' stipulations acknowledge this and therefore grant them ways to be freed. Thus if the master is displeased with her, she can redeem herself by paying a price (21:8), and if the master neglects her, she can go out without any payment (21:11). There is no concept that such relationship should last life-time. Instead, Moses lists out ways when slaves can get what they want: freedom. But today, we don't get into a marriage hoping that one day we will get out of it. Thus, the three reasons found in 21:11 can hardly be used to validate divorce today. Not to mention that violence or abuse, which I-B talks about throughout his book, is not even included in any of them! He can only argue that abuse is implied in the text, (p. 64) in which case he does not even need to require that Ex. 21 be applied today. He simply needs to say that abuse and neglect are implied in Jesus' permission of divorce in the event of adultery.
I-B mentions that God files for divorce in the Old Testament. He is right to assert that divorce is possible if contract is violated. But he fails to see that the only reason God gave in divorcing Israel was that Israel was unfaithful to Him, not that Israel failed to keep the other three obligations mentioned by I-B
Chapter Five is the core of the book, yet it is the most problematic chapter. I-B claims that in Matt. 19:9, Jesus is responding to debate between Hillel and Shammai,
Jesus was answering their question in plain language, and he wasn't making a universal statement. Therefore, when he said, "nothing except `Sexual Immorality'" he was saying that the phrase "a cause of sexual immorality" did not include the extra ground of `Any Cause', and he didn't mean "there is no divorce ever, in any part of the Bible, except for `Sexual Immorality'". (p. 50)
The most obvious problem is: Jesus did not say "nothing except `sexual immorality'". It is astonishing that after debunking the idea of "no one can separate", I-B commits the same type of error. What Jesus says, is this: whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. (NASB) The legal phrase "nothing except `sexual immorality'" is not found here because Jesus did not include the word "nothing".
I-B's argument is still plausible since the context does talk about this debate between Hillel and Shammai, but he gives no room for the traditional interpretation, that Jesus might have really meant that remarriage after a divorce, except for sexual immorality, is adultery. Let us assume that Jesus indeed wants to express this viewpoint. How would He express it? Would He not say exactly what He says in the text? In other words, by adopting I-B's interpretive method, even if Jesus wants to express this viewpoint, we would not be able to get it.
I-B describes the reaction of Jesus' listeners as surprised. But this hardly makes sense. If this was a current debate, why would anyone be surprised that a rabbi took one of the two positions? The logical answer is that these people did not hear Jesus supporting one of the two positions, but a third one: any divorce is invalid except sexual immorality.
Astonishingly, in discussing Matt. 19:9, I-B leaves out Matt. 5:32, in which almost the exact expression is found. In 5:32, it is clear that Jesus was not in a dialogue about debate between Hillel and Shammai. The meaning is plain. Unless I-B wants to go against the normal ways people communicate, it is very hard to interpret Jesus' words "everyone who divorces his wife, except for [the] cause of unchastity" (NASB) as "everyone who divorces his wife, not limited to the cause of unchastity."
The only reason why I-B thinks this traditional understanding is wrong is that it contradicts 1 Cor. 7:15 (p. 50). But this argument fails. Paul's point in that text is not that believers can initiate divorce once they are abandoned, but to allow their unbelieving spouse to divorce them if they insist. To live in peace is the purpose. Such advice only makes sense because Paul cannot impose his Christian ethics on unbelievers. It is hardly a contradiction to the traditional understanding of Matt. 5:32 and 9:19. I-B later in the book also admits that in this verse, "[Paul] is saying, if an unbeliever leaves a believer, let them do so because, after all, there is very little the believer can do about it." (p. 66). It is unclear why I-B feels he is justified to use an uncontrollable divorce situation to argue for another valid reason for divorce other than adultery.
In Chapter 8, I-B presents a circular argument. He interprets Jesus' silence on abuse and neglect as something that Jesus finds no need to repudiate. Thus, I-B claims that Jesus accepts such grounds for divorce. Then, I-B uses this as basis to interpret Matt. 19:9 as only rejecting "Any Cause." But I-B assumes what he wants to prove. If the traditional interpretation of Matt. 19:9 is correct, I-B cannot say that Jesus never comments on neglect and abuse - He comments on them indirectly by excluding everything except adultery from grounds of divorce. The traditional understanding may be wrong, but I-B cannot first assumes that Jesus accepts multiple grounds of divorce, and then comes back to repudiate the traditional interpretation of Matt. 19:9 as wrong.
In p. 87, I-B argues that since Paul refers to Ex. 21:10 in 1 Cor. 7, he teaches four grounds for divorce. This connection is arbitrary. First, it is true that in both passages, conjugal love is mentioned, but to equate "please [one's spouse]" with promise to clothe and feed is at best forced. Secondly, in 1 Cor. 7:32-34, to "please [one's spouse]" is a description, not prescription. Thus, it is not Paul's intention to list grounds for divorce when he mentions these "obligations." I-B assumes that if Paul mentions certain obligations of marriage, he must allow divorce upon failure of meeting those obligations. But this is a big assumption. I am sure Paul would still call married couples to fulfill their marriage vows even if he does not think breaking some of those vows serve as valid reason for divorce.
Even I-B hesitates to grant divorce on failing to fulfill the obligation of "conjugal love." When he tries to defend the four grounds of divorce, in p. 91-92, he confuses his readers by seemingly saying that this particular failure should be no reason for divorce unless there is hard-hearted breaking of vows according to Jesus. But an obvious question arises: What constitutes a hard-hearted breaking of "conjugal love" if falling out of love or showing no physical affection do not count? I-B does not specify. I presume it would be act of hatred, abuse, or violence. But then it would not be withholding "conjugal love," but something else.
In Chapter 9-10, I-B discusses the validity of remarriage. His argument for remarriage after a valid divorce is convincing, but he also claims that after an invalid divorce, the couple can still remarry different partners eventually. The victim can remarry because he or she is abandoned, which makes divorce valid. The guilty one can remarry when all attempts of reconciliation with the ex-partner fails. There is one difficulty in this interpretation: it contradicts Matt. 5:32 and 19:9. Even in his reinterpretation of these texts, I-B admits that Jesus does call all remarriages after invalid divorce as adultery. (p. 112) Even the victim commits adultery if remarried. In order to reconcile this contradiction, I-B argues that Jesus was merely using "preacher's rhetoric." Yet this argument is insufficient. The whole point of Jesus' hyperbole is to discourage people from doing such things. For example, Jesus discourages people from looking at women lustfully by calling it adultery. (Matt. 5:28) Yet, I-B tries to argue that since it is merely "preacher's rhetoric", people are still free to remarry after invalid divorce. It is hard to conceive that Bible teaches people that they are free to engage in an action that is technically sin.
Conclusion
I don't disagree with all of I-B's propositions. I appreciate his pastoral heart and pragmatic considerations. In the email exchanges between his readers and him in the last chapter, I can see how his advice will be of significant practical help to his readers. I too cannot deny that it is non-sense to ask a couple to "hang in there" when life-threatening domestic violence goes on while divorce is granted when there is adultery. I too want to see how the Scripture can be interpreted to allow divorce on more grounds other than adultery, but this must be done by careful exegesis, and I-B's exegesis is less than satisfying to me.

This is the best book I have read on this subject. Instone-Brewer balances respect for the authority of the Bible, good historical background and scholarship with pastoral compassion. His arguments are consistent, logical, and biblical. Basically, he says that while the Bible discourages divorce, it is practical in allowing divorce and remarriage under certain grounds.

This month's cover story in "Christianity Today" highlights the growing Christian (and especially evangelical) engagement with questions relating to divorce and remarriage. The attention may be long overdue: western culture precedes us in this same awareness.

'Divorce and Remarriage' is a helpful volume that analyzes Scriptural evidence for different points of view. When is divorce 'justified'? When is remarriage Biblical? Answers are thorough and exegetical.

Another great recent resource in this field was recommended in the same issue of "Christianity Today" (October, 2007). It is called "Happily Remarried" and I'll put a link here:

Happily Remarried: *Making Decisions Together *Blending Families Successfully* Building a Love That Will Last

Both of these books help pastors, counselors, divorce-recovery leaders and others understand the spiritual and emotional dynamics of the post-divorce family structure. Both of these books can help you make sense of the options and choices confronting today's adults.

This book is an excellent book to get for those who find they don't have the time to read Dr. Instone-Brewer's much longer scholarly version of his well-researched conclusions, "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context."

The book is excellent because it is user-friendly in it's organisation, and makes for a quick reference guide as well as a book to read straight through (which the author recommends doing, to get the whole idea across). The author's basic conclusions are that there any repeated, unrepented for breaks in the marriage vows become grounds for divorce by the innocent party, should they choose it. The innocent is then free to remarry, and so is the 'guilty' if reconciliation is no longer possible. Instone-Brewer argues well against the idea of indissoluable union, and shows that marriage is a sacred contract, that CAN be dissolved, even though it ought not to be (Matthew 19:6).

I have found Dr. Instone-Brewer's work to be the best in this complex issue, out of all of the books/articles/position papers and emails which I've read while researching this issue. He truly has a heart which seeks to understand, and is very happy to interact personally with people about their questions. To date, he has sent me two rather lengthly answers to questions I've personally had.

I very much recommend this book to anyone struggling with this issue, or who simply wants to have a greater grasp on it.

How many times do we need to be reminded that it is critical, when studying scripture, to look at the context in which it was written, the purpose and the intricacies of the society at the time of its writing? Nuances of the original language are important as well if we are ever to gather the true meaning of what we read. We are children of a loving God. When what he commands seems to go against reason, we need to study further. He (God) reminds us that we need to "seek" him. That is what this book does.

The way the Church has handled the questions of divorce and remarriage in the past and today are contrary to God's will for us. How many of us have stayed in bad and even abusive marriages in an attempt to be obedient to God? What if you found out that traditional thinking was based on a poor translation of scripture?

This book is an absolute "must read". Even if you are not interested in the topics of divorce and remarriage, the arguments for the way we study scripture are worth the read. To say this book was life-changing for me is an understatement. I know now that I am free to do what needs to be done and I will still be covered by the Grace of Jesus Christ and will continue to dwell in the arms of a loving God.

This book contains the most up-to-date research available on the subject of Divorce and Remarraige in the biblical world. Much of the information on the historical setting of New Testament statements about D&R are absolutely crucial to understaing the New Testament teaching on the subject. At times the author seems to leap to conclusions not justified by the material presented, but the material itself is always well researched and presented.

David's done classic pastoral, biblically-sound, practical, wise work. A valuable resource for any individual Christian, Bible student or pastor. The best teaching and counsel I've read on this topic.

I think that Mr. Brewer has brought new understanding to this difficult
topic. I would recommend this book to especially elders, pastors and anyone
who deals with those hurt by divorce.

Richard Wallace
Orlando, Florida