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

Divorce and Remarriage in the Church seeks to provide the reader with information from extra-biblical sources needed to conclude from the Bible that marriage is not permanent; there are four grounds for divorce; divorce with grounds is not sin; and freedom to remarry extends to any repentant divorcee. In the process, the meaning of Scripture according to the normal laws of language is often overridden by the author's extra-biblical observations and speculation. What follows is a brief refutation of eleven key assertions, offered for the reader's thoughtful evaluation.1. Many pastors have found the traditional teaching on divorce to be unworkable (161).This pragmatic argument puts perceived workability above a commitment to take God at His word and act on it no matter what.2. "God commanded that a husband who left his wife must give her a divorce certificate."God regulated the existing practice of divorce to protect wives who were being left. He never commanded, sanctioned or approved divorce as a remedy for marital difficulties, or as recognition of marital death.3. "God hates divorce not because it is an evil act but because" "...it means that promises in the marriage contract have been broken (Mal. 2:14-16)" (162).But this is not what Mal. 2:16 says. In context, God hates divorce because it is an act of treachery against a person's partner, leaving a wife without needed protection and provision. By ending the legal aspect of marriage, divorce forfeits reconciliation and restoration of the couple's relationship.Since God is Spirit and cannot physically consummate a marriage contract with a person or group, His marriage and divorce with Israel is metaphorical. In point of fact, Yahweh's figurative divorce of Israel did not end the covenant relationship established unconditionally with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It ended the conditional Mosaic covenant on which Israel's enjoyment of her relationship with Yahweh, and realization of His blessings, depended. Yahweh's abiding relationship with Israel and Judah is illustrated by Hosea's reunion with Gomer after her unfaithfulness. It is certified by the New Covenant that has replaced only the Mosaic Covenant (see Jeremiah 31:31).4. "Jesus affirmed the teaching of the Old Testament" in opposition to the Pharisees introduction of "Any Cause" divorce, siding with the Shammaites (162).In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus clearly repealed aspects of the Mosaic Law such as "'An eye for an eye'" (Matt. 5:38). He repeatedly stated the Law's true intent in contrast to what the Jews had "heard" or misunderstood. For example, He taught His disciples to love their enemies in contrast to what they had heard, namely, "'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy,'" (Matt. 5:43). Accordingly, it was in contrast to what the Law (not Hillel) said, i.e., "'Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce,'" that Jesus countered with the statement, "'but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery'" (Matt. 5:31, 32).The Disciples' shock at Jesus' statement response to the Pharisees, in Matthew 19:9, 10, is far better explained as a reaction to Jesus' return to the high standard of God's original intention for marriage (one man and one woman for life) than simply His alignment with the more conservative of two schools of thought on divorce...the view of Shammai that Instone-Brewer promotes without any expectation that anyone will conclude, "'If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.'"5. "Jesus also emphasized that divorce is never compulsory, even if adultery has taken place, and that believers should only divorce someone who is `hardhearted'--stubbornly unrepentant, as Israel was" (162).In the context of Matthew 19:8, "hardness of heart" was not stated as a ground for divorce, or as a description of a partner who proved to be irreconcilable over time. Hardness of heart describes those whose resort to divorce, rather than remaining faithful to their vows, made the regulation of divorce necessary. There is an important difference between a ground for divorce, and a ground for its regulation.6. The author's contends: Paul recognized that those wronged by groundless divorce were not enslaved to a marriage that could be regarded as a valid biblical divorce on the grounds of neglect" (162).Here Instone-Brewer reasons that "Any Cause" divorce ends a marriage and frees the partner thus neglected to remarry without sin. It would seem to follow that only a person divorced with cause cannot remarry? But the author later concludes that any divorcee may remarry if he or she has demonstrated repentance (see #9 below, and page 163).7. "Many people believe that marriage lasts till death... ." "Chapter seven looked at this point of view and found no basis for this interpretation."It is agreed that divorce ends the legal aspect of marriage or else a divorcee's remarriage would be called "bigamy," or "polygamy" rather than "adultery." But the fact that remarriage after divorce is called "adultery" in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18, presents a dilemma. The author's solution to this dilemma is to say that Jesus essentially used the word adultery tongue-in-cheek, as the rhetorical device of a preacher, for shock-value, not as something to be taken literally. But the only reason to assume that Jesus could not have meant that actual adultery is the result of divorce a remarriage is that it would contradict the author's unproven thesis.8. "...first-century believers would have had no uncertainty" [about remarriage after divorce] "because the right to remarry was taken for granted" (163). "Neither Paul nor Jesus gave this directive" [to break Roman law by not remarrying], "and although Paul never actually said `A divorcee may remarry,' we saw that some of his teaching assumed that remarriage was allowed for Christians" (163).This argument is based on cultural assumptions and the alleged silence of Scripture. If the author's dubious assumptions are not granted, both Jesus and Paul will be understood as forbidding remarriage following divorce.In Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18 Jesus uses universal language "whoever, and "everyone," in stating that divorce and remarriage is adultery, and so is marrying one who is divorced. Since adultery breaks the 7th commandment, Jesus' statement prohibits remarriage after divorce.In 1 Corinthians 7:15, if the "peace" to which "God has called us" is not a reference to post-divorce tranquility but reconciliation with an estranged partner as the only alternative to living singly, then Paul also prohibited remarriage.9. "Even guilty partners can remarry, because God is able to forgive someone who repents of an invalid divorce that cannot be reconciled without breaking up another marriage" (163).This culmination of Instone-Brewers argument on the basis of cultural observations, the alleged silence of Scripture, and assumptions, effectively dismisses adultery as ever being the actual consequence of anyone's divorce and remarriage as long as the guilty party repents. This assumes that permission to remarry implies forgiveness; that the prohibition to remarry implies punishment; and that the entire issue of marriage, divorce and remarriage hinges on forgiveness rather than faithfulness. No text of Scripture remotely hints of this, and it flatly contradicts the words of Jesus on the subject. According to the metaphor of Yahweh's divorce of Israel, forgiveness of guilt is a means to restoring the relationship between the partners of the original marriage. It is not a condition for permission to marry someone else.10. "...our modern wedding service still retains the vows that originated in Exodus 21" (163).Exodus 21 concerns slaves under the Law of Moses. But Christians are neither slaves nor under the Law of Moses. Also, there is no basis for assuming that the slave was ever married to the woman whose needs he was not to neglect. So, the most likely reason that Jesus didn't mention the provision of food, clothing and conjugal rights as the content of wedding vows, or infer that their neglect are grounds for divorce, is that the passage does not apply to marriage at all.Jesus refers to Genesis 2:24 as the biblical basis for marriage, not Exodus 21.11. "Paul points out, sadly, people can become `one flesh' with prostitutes (1 Cor 6:15-20) ... ." "But he does not say that a `one flesh relationship with a prostitute is permanent" (84).Actually, God joins a couple in marriage (Matt. 19:6) in a way that a couple is not joined by sex outside of marriage (1 Cor. 6:15-20). Paul used the words, one sōma (body) in reference to man who only physically "joins himself to a prostitute" (1 Cor. 6:16, emphasis added). He then contrasts this with the biblical purpose of the physical union which is to become one sarx (flesh) in the union of all that two people are (Gen. 2:24). The one-flesh relationship of a married couple persists after divorce in a way that the one-body of a couple out of wedlock does not. It involved the legal act of leaving father and mother with the intent of establishing a new family unit by cleaving through solemn vows sealed by the sexual union.To assert "they are to act like one person," (Instone-Brewer, 25) is a straw-man argument--easy to erect and knock down. The Bible never suggests that entering the one-flesh relationship of marriage results in the loss of individuality or the merging of personalities. Nor are married couples ever asked to pretend something that is untrue. In fact, marriage reflects the Godhead in which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are in reality distinct persons of One Being.Divorce removes the "leaving" leg of the three-legged stool of marriage thus ending the marriage legally. But divorce does not erase accountability before God for the solemn vows of cleaving, nor can it erase the fact that those vows were sealed by the sexual union with the result that a couple's one-flesh relationship lasts as long as the vows say it does, "'til death do us part."What makes the sex of promiscuity wrong is that it has aspects of intimacy and permanence without the safeguards that make it holy. It is intimacy without the sacrifice that pictures a believer's exclusive fellowship with the one true God. Though marriage is ended by divorce, legally, the one-flesh relationship of a marriage ended by divorce lasts as long as the vows declare.

Thankful for a scholarly study on the subject of divorce from a biblical framework. The ability to pray and read the texts and think through divorce without just mired tradition is freeing for victims of vow broken marriages. Divorce should definitely not be the only answer to marriage problems but a biblical reference should be.

This book goes through much historical data, including reasons why the Christian Church fathers misunderstood certain phrases in the New Testiment. He goes over the historical basis of wedding vows and their roots and meanings. He goes over what are valid biblical divorce reasons, what are not, and how Jesus emphasises that divorce is a last resort for hardheadedness where a spouse will not stop or repent from breaking their vows.I especially appreciated his discourse on 1 Corinthians 7, especially vs 10-11 as those apply to me where I am in life. He shows how separation without divorce is not biblical using OT and NT verses and historical information of the language and laws of the times the passages were written. He also shows how in verse 11, we are to reconcile if we wrongly divorced/separated if it is possible - both are living and have not married again.He also speaks of the greatly misunderstood passages where Jesus speaks of divorce and remarriage. He brings up the debate of the time, known about for over 150 years now, where two groups of Jewish leaders disagreed on the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1 - Jesus was clarifying that "any cause" divorce was invalid, that divorce based on that passage could only be for sexual immorality. Yet the author also points out that those same Jewish authorities also used Exodus 21 for divorces in broken vows, but that was not what Jesus was addressing in that discussion with the pharasees.Very very very helpful and informative book!!!

This is a corollary for (and an easier version of) _Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible_, which is one of the best books I ever read. Fantastic scholarship. The conclusions of Dr David Instone-Brewer's works will help bring about a necessary revolution in church teaching on the subject, back to first-century understandings and away from merely the "traditions of man." They will also produce a kinder and gentler Christianity. Either work can be viewed as a must-read for pastors and church leaders, and all who are affected by divorce. The praise for these books, by scholars such as Dr Kenneth Barker, is spot on. I rate the predecessor, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, higher simply because we see Dr Instone-Brewer"s full scholarship and the rabbinic case law examples leading up to the first century A.D.

Instone-Brewer has reduced his scholarly book on the same subject to this more popular level entry, and the effect has been helpful, even if one sometimes feels that he shaved too much detail away. This book will walk pastors, ministers, and church members through an easily understood framework within which to attempt a biblical practice of divorce and remarriage. Admittedly, those steeped in traditional understandings of this issue will be hard pressed to change their convictions soon upon reading this book. In my view, Instone-Brewer's conclusions require far too much data from the ancient world and far too many "assumptions" from the biblical authors themselves (see especially his treatment of what Jesus had to have been assuming about OT divorce law in Matt 19 and what Paul had to have been assuming about Roman divorce law in 1 Corinthians 7). Basically, his position leaves the impression that hardly anyone could have ever known the biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage without a thorough knowledge of divorce law for both Jews and Romans. However, I fully recommend the book. In spite of the necessary assumptions, he may, in fact, be right.

I really appreciate the work that David has done in this area, it gives great context on the debates and questions around divorce at the time of Jesus, the debat about 'any cause' divorce the Jews were going through is fascinating. I also had not realised the context of Roman divorce as the background to Paul's letter to the Corinthians.I am not sure I agree with everything in the book, however, I am thankful that David has spent the time to research this area and challenge the way 21st century Christian's approach divorce and remarriage.An amazing exellent book, which is well worth the read, and if this is not in-depth enough David has a companion book more academicly focused.

What a brilliant, clear and pastorally sensitive book. All the scriptures and often misleading understandings laid out with clear and uncompromising sensitive wisdom and advice. I loved the historical exposition that filled in so much, the explanation of how we've got to where we are. But also how David included pastoral advice, which in some cases meant saying to people what they didn't wish to hear. This isn't a book helping people get divorced, but pastorally grace filled and sensitive wisdom for the dark days we live in where divorce is an unfortunate and all too present reality for too many. Highly Recommended

Hence my 'four star rating for a five star purchase. Apart from that comment the book itself is one of the most comprehensive, well researched, up to date and contextually relevent books on a very sensitive theological debate. I neither 'loved it,' nor even 'liked it' Amazon, but it merits the very highest rating. I would describe it as an Invaluable resource especially to any pastor or counsellor working from a Christian perspective in this very difficult area. David has also written up this research in another book at a deeper academic level, for those who are seeking a more detailed theological analysis.

This book is a thoroughly scholarly exposition of the context of New Testmanet teaching on marriage and divorce and the principles underlying the Old Testament approach to divorce. He transforms the texts from being a series of mystifying, incomprehensible and apparently random teachings into a coherent whole which make sense both Biblically and pastorally. He in no way minimises the seriousness of divorce (in fact he affirms that every possible thing should be done to preserve a marriage)but he outlines a pastoral approach which makes sense. For me the most astonishing thing was the understanding that in the Old Testament a certificate of divorce was actually an explicit statement that the person is no longer married and is free to remarry (and indeed in that culture, remarriage would have been expected by the community).

This is another excellent boom with much research and sound scriptural references. A must in today's climate and to help us understand also why it must not be assumed that its okay in the sight of God to practice domestic violence of any format in the marriage.