Category Archives: Doctrine/Theology

July 3, 2008 · 12:15 pm

Marriage & Divorce 9: Getting Remarried?


We’ve been following David Instone-Brewer’s IVP book, Divorce and Remarriage in the churchand now come to chapter 9. Thus far he has been arguing that there are 4 biblical grounds for divorce in the bible. Some of these grounds, he argues, become clearer when you understand the culture in which Paul and Jesus were arguing. While both argue against groundless divorce, they also allow directly or indirectly OT allowances for failure to love, support, and be faithful to one’s spouse.

But in this chapter I-B asks whether the Scriptures support remarriage. In short, his argument is that everyone in that time (Rabbis, Greeks) believed that if divorced properly, remarriage was a given, even nearly compulsory. If Jesus and Paul thought otherwise, wouldn’t they have said so? The only purpose for a certificate of divorce was one thing: freedom to remarry. He points to Paul’s quotation of common divorce decrees in 1 Cor. 7:39: “She is free to remarry…” (p. 111). While he is speaking there to widows, he uses divorce certificate language. Why? I-B states that Paul could only refer to this language if everyone believed that divorcees had the right to remarry. Further, Paul says abandoned Christians have the right to remarry though they should pursue reconciliation if possible.

But what about those who caused or actively sought a groundless divorce? Can they remarry? I-B says that Paul states that those who separated and divorced groundlessly must not remarry but pursue reconciliation (1 Cor 7:11). They should seek to “make things right” but if they cannot (because the other remarries) then they are not allowed to pursue this person and are free to remarry.

I-B raises the question about the consequence/punishment of forcing an unbiblical divorce being the inability to ever remarry. He says it is neither since the call is to reconcile until it is no longer possible and then the person is free.

We have to realize that despite the number of passages on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, there is still much silence in areas we’d like. Those who try to make that silence into meaning we can do what we want are wrong but so are those who act as if the silence is black/white and as if Jesus/Paul spoke more definitively than they really did. It is interesting to think that Paul’s teaching on this is about stopping invalid divorces but not being enslaved to an invalid divorce when one is a victim and being free to remarry. We read these passages from our context but when I-B points out Paul’s context and the supporting documents, he has a strong case!

2 Comments

Filed under book reviews, Christianity, divorce, Doctrine/Theology

Tagged as , ,

June 26, 2008 · 5:09 am

Study the Bible at Biblical for the fun of it!


Now there’s a concept: Biblical Seminary offering bible classes for anyone in the surrounding area.

Actually, we’re resurrecting a very popular past-time here at the seminary. In the olden days, seminarians went to school during the day. So, some teachers here decided to offer lay bible classes for the public in the evening. When we switched to night courses for our grad students, these courses disappeared.

But now, you can take a course on either (or both!) the Old Testament or the New Testament. Have you wanted to study the bible a bit deeper but didn’t want to do the homework? Have you ever wanted grad level bible education but didn’t finish your undergraduate degree? Have you wanted a place to get the benefit of top-notch bible teachers but couldn’t commit to a whole semester? Well, now is your chance for a 6 week bible class on Thursday nights in both fall and Spring for the minuscule fee of $79.!! Follow this link for the PDF with details as to when and where.

2 Comments

Filed under Biblical Seminary, Doctrine/Theology

Tagged as , ,

June 25, 2008 · 5:38 am

Divorce & Remarriage VIII: 4 Biblical Grounds for Divorce


Last week I took a hiatus from reviewing Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage in the Church  (IVP). This week we explore chapter 8. I-B starts with a story about a woman whose husband attempted to murder her. Her church leaders decided that it would be okay for her to separate due to the threat to her life but that she could not divorce because the Bible didn’t allow it. He suggests that this is a common response to abuse in marriages: Separation for safety but no possibility of divorce unless adultery.

I-B makes this very clear response: “…[this] solution is not biblical. A couple should not separate without getting divorced, because Paul specifically says that married couples may not separate (1 Cor. 7:10-11).” (p. 94-5)

But we have already witnessed I-B argue that the OT allowed the victim to decide to divorce in the case of abuse, neglect, and adultery. Did the NT abandon these grounds? I-B reminds the reader,

He [Jesus] spoke about the ideal of lifelong marriage, the facts that divorce was never compulsory and that marriage was not compulsory, about monogamy and, of course, about his interpretation of “a cause of sexual immorality’–that it means only sexual immorality and not also “Any Cause.” So if Jesus believed that neglect and abuse were valid grounds for divorce, why didn’t he say something about them? (p. 95)

I-B infers that Jesus didn’t say anything because it was so obvious a reason. It was not considered controversial as was the “any cause” debate that was raging at the time of his ministry. He argues that Jesus didn’t teach about rape, manslaughter, the oneness of God either. Does this mean he didn’t believe those things either? Bolstering his argument is the fact that he reports that no other ancient Jewish literature debates the validity of divorce for abuse/neglect. Therefore, it wasn’t an issue needing attention. He goes on to tell us that what was debated was how one defined neglect (i.e., minimum quantities of clothing and food and conjugal love needed in order to avoid being considered in neglect of one’s spouse).

So, to underline this, the Matthew 19:9 passage is in regard to the question of Deut. 24:1 and the debate about whether any cause divorces were valid and not to say that no other grounds were possible.

So, I-B suggests that Paul teaches 3 grounds for divorce (implicitly) in 1 Cor. 7: neglect of food, clothes and sex. The reason why he talks about the obligations to care for the spouse and not to withhold is because of the known (at that time) grounds for divorce existing in Ex 21:10-11. Further it is assumed that Paul accepted the cause of unfaithfulness as grounds but that he doesn’t speak to this issue.

So how do we apply these grounds for today? While it is easier to assess unfaithfulness, I-B says that we too frequently neglect the matter of neglect that may have helped cause the rift that resulted in adultery (p. 101). Neglect doesn’t excuse adultery but, “it is important to realize that the fault is often not just one sided.” (ibid).

What about frequency of sex a reason for divorce? The rabbis thought men should provide sexual love at least 2 times per week, less if you were an “ass driver” (HIS words not mine), and nightly if you were out of work! Of note were NO rules for women as to how frequently they would need to offer conjugal love. Despite these pieces of advice, I-B reports that, “rabbis were reluctant to allow a divorce on the ground of refusing conjugal activity…” Further, notice that while Paul encourages both parties to see sex as something they owe each other, I-B points out that nowhere does he give permission for one party to demand sex from the other. “…Love is something that we give and not something that we take.” (p. 102). Still further, I-B suggests that we should not define conjugal love as narrowly as intercourse, “because this can become impractical or inappropriate in cases of illness or frailty.” (ibid)

I-B wants us to look at the principles. The husband that never allows his wife to buy make-up, occasional leisure items and the husband that provides weekly sex but no other kind of affection may not violate the technical side of things but certainly has missed the spirit of the biblical mandate to protect and care for her.  

What about the couple who no longer finds themselves in love? Can they divorce? I-B says it would be improper to read back the idea of being in love into the biblical passage. Love is an act, not a feeling.

I-B ends with the question about what can be said to the abused party. Here’s what he would say to an abused wife,

First, we can tell her that God’s law has taken such sin into account. God’s ideal for marriage is for a husband and wife to be faithful to each other and, as we saw in the [OT], for them to support each other with food, clothing and conjugal love. If these vows are broken, then there are grounds for divorce.

Since there is no question that the abusing husband is “neglecting” to support his wife, she should be aware that she does have the option to divorce him…

We should not forget, though, that Jesus emphasized forgiveness…so we should not advise this woman to divorce her husband the first time he breaks his vows. However, if he continues to sin hardheartedly (stubbornly or without repentance), Jesus says she may divorce him. In practice we have to depend on the individual concerned to decide when enough is enough, because we cannot know what goes on inside a marriage. We cannot know how much emotional abuse is happening, and even physical abuse is largely unseen or unreported. (p. 103-4)

I-B speaks of the false facade that we erect or allow to be erected about “happy” marriages that in fact are not. This is sad and not the way it should be. God does, however, know our secret sufferings and so he says this to the abused,

“God is not a ruler who sits on a high throne in isolation, ignorant of the suffering of his people. He aches with us, even in divorce, which he too has suffered. God loves you and knows your secret sufferings. he wants to help you and has given us practical laws to help deal with your hurt.” That is what we say to a person in a neglectful or abusive marriage. p. 106

—-

So, do you agree? Where does your mind go when considering these as grounds for divorce that the victim uses to decide if she or he has had enough? I have found that while some concede these, they are very afraid that some will cry “victim” when they are not. That these grounds will be used for all manner of excuses and that “victims” will assert that only they can know that they have been abused.

While it is true that some and even many will abuse the divorce rules in the bible, it doesn’t make them any less true.

27 Comments

Filed under Abuse, biblical counseling, Biblical Reflection, book reviews, christian counseling, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, Relationships

Tagged as , , ,

June 11, 2008 · 7:14 am

Divorce & Remarriage 7: Am I still married even though I was divorced?


We come to chapter 7 of Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage in the Church. In this chapter he tackles the question of what ends a marriage. After a couple of lame jokes to make his next point, he asks if a woman who is betrayed and cheated on and then involuntarily divorced by her husband is still married to him. Is she single? Divorced? Still married? I-B says many biblical scholars erroneously say, “married–because only death can end a marriage.” (p. 82) This chapter is designed to debunk the “forever married” doctrine.

People commit adultery or become cruel or abusive, and their marriages start to break down. What happens then? Most marriages can be healed with effort from both partners, but like cancer, if it is left untreated too long, broken vows are terminal because they kill a marriage. (p. 83)

  What to do? I-B suggests 3 options are available at the terminal stage: remain together and suffer (hoping it will get better), separate without divorce, get divorced.

But what does the Bible have to say about these options? Doesn’t the bible suggest lifelong marriage? He reminds the reader that “let no one separate” doesn’t mean it can’t but it is “undesirable”. Beyond this passage, he explores 3 more: Mt 19:9, 1 Cor. 6:15f, and Eph. 5:32. The Matt passage is against any cause divorce and not against all divorce. Paul in 1 Cor 6 says that one flesh relationships are very intimate but not necessarily permanent because if that were the case, those that had been fornicators would have to be warned to stay single. Finally, in Ephesians 5 marriage is referred to as a mystery. Some have treated this as a sacrament (something that can’t be broken) but he and most evangelicals reject this translation/meaning.

I-B then goes on to talk about silence in the NT about divorce in two passages: Rom 7:2 and 1 Cor 7:39. Is it surprising the silence about divorce in these passages? The Romans passage seems on the surface to be about not being able to remarry while a husband is still alive. But I-B says it is really about the relationship we have with the law and with Christ. Just as the parable of the sower isn’t about farming, this one isn’t really about divorce law in that it doesn’t state all the options one might be able to have about divorce–only the part that is appropriate for making Paul’s point about belonging to Christ through death. Divorce is used to illustrate a point, not to teach about divorce here.

This can be summarized thus: People are tied to the law of Moses till they die, just as a wife is tied to her husband till death. If she went with another man this would be adultery, unless her husband died. Therefore God lets you die with Christ, in order to set you free to marry Christ. (p. 89)

1 Cor 7:39 is about what happens to a spouse when the other spouse dies. It is not teaching about divorce here, but is silent on the matter.  What it is teaching on, says I-B is freeing widows from the levirate marriage which would require them to marry their brother-in-law.

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whome she wishes, only in the Lord.

SO I-B ends the chapter with these findings

1. Jesus commands those who have been joined through marriage vows that they should never separate, but a sinner who disregards Jesus’ commands can still break up the marriage [even if they don’t initiate the divorce]

2. “one flesh” is descriptive not prescriptive; “not necessarily permanent.”

3. Some passages may mention marriage and divorce but since the passages aren’t about that, we shouldn’t squeeze meanings unintended from them or try to make much of the silence on the issues. The next chapter will look at when divorce is possible.

So, what do you think of his re-reading of these texts? Do you agree that divorce isn’t really the topic and so therefore we can’t use these texts to try to make them speak to our questions about when it is possible or not possible to divorce or remarry?

1 Comment

Filed under book reviews, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage

Tagged as , , , ,

June 3, 2008 · 12:34 pm

Divorce & Remarriage VI: Paul in 1 Cor 7


We come to chapter 6 of Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage where he discusses Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 7. Before he takes on the text, he surmises that Paul must have been married given that it was mandatory both for Jews (to be fruitful and multiply) and for Romans (made law by Augustus in 18 BC). He notes that Paul contradicts compulsory marriage by making it optional in this passage.

But does he speak against marriage? Well I-B suggests that at that time there was a severe famine going on and so it would be hard for people to care for family. This, he thinks, may have been the “present distress” mentioned in 7:26. Second, he believes that verse 1 of this chapter, “Now for the matters you wrote about: it is good for a man not to marry,” that the phrase “it is good…” is NOT Paul’s belief but only a repetition of what the Corinthians believed and were writing for him to clarify. The NIV study bible also raises this as a possibility since Paul speaks well of marriage elsewhere.

What about depriving each other of sex? What is this about? I-B says this,

Notice that Paul does not say that either partner can demand sexual love, because both should regard the other person as ruling over their body. Love is a matter not of taking but giving….Also, Paul does not define what this love consists of, because in some situations, a cuddle is a warmer expression of conjugal love than intercourse. (p. 73)

I-B mentions that Roman divorces were very easy. They also had no fault divorce. A person had only to leave and separate. One did not have to prove abuse or neglect. So, in verse 10, Paul (per I-B) is telling the Corinthians that they should not seek no-fault separations. If one does seek a separation, then that person should either remain unmarried or seek to reconcile. At this point he goes into some technical translation work about the word separate. Should it be translated as reflexive–separate oneself, or passive (be separated from by someone else’s act). Bottom line:

Paul’s point is that Christians should not use Roman form of divorce-by-separation because it is groundless, therefore it is too easy to divorce people against their will when they have done nothing wrong. Anybody could take it on themselves to separate, and their partner would suddenly find that they had been legally divorced whether they wanted it or not. (p. 77)

IB then asks, “But what if you have used divorce-by separation?” I-B says Paul is teaching that those who enacted separations without cause should seek to reconcile or remain unmarried. And if you are the victim of such a separation, you treat them as an unbeliever and let them go in peace.

He finishes with these concluding points:

1. Believers should never cause divorce (be the one to break the vows. He is not saying they shouldn’t seek a divorce because the other broke the vows).

2. Believers should not use groundless divorces.

3. But questions remain for later chapters: can a believer divorce a partner who breaks their vows unrepentantly; and can a believer remarry after a divorce.

I think I-B brings clarity to Paul’s seeming contradiction in this chapter. However, he may or may not be correct about the famine bit. One would think that if Paul were referring to something like a famine he might have mentioned it. Seems that he is saying something much more eternal. That is good to marry but it is also good to be single and be devoted to the Lord. I also liked what he had to say about our bodies not being our own. Sometimes that is used to demand sex from another. But if we heed this passage, we cannot demand anything at all but only seek to give kindness and love.

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection, book reviews, christian counseling, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage, Relationships

Tagged as , ,

May 21, 2008 · 5:11 am

Divorce & Remarriage V: Divorce on Demand?


In chapter 5 of Instone-Brewer’s (I-B) Divorce and Remarriage in the Church we come to Jesus’ reactions to the “any cause” debate raised by the religious leaders. I-B suggests that prior to the time of Jesus, divorce was only allowed for failure to provide clothing, sex, and food–and could be initiated by either a male or female (I am suspicious as to whether women really could initiate divorce…). But by the time of Jesus’ ministry, Hillel, a popularized the “any cause” divorce by his mis-reading of Deutronomy24:1. Hillel and his followers proposed two grounds for divorce: sexual immorality and “any cause” based on some fault other than immorality. I-B reports that women were in favor of the “any cause” clause. If a woman was divorced for immorality (or allegations thereof) she could be killed or at minimum lose her rights to her marriage inheritance. But the “any cause” divorce was quietly done and mean she would probably get some of her inheritance. I-B suggests that Joseph’s plan to divorce Mary quietly followed the “any cause” clause,

Joseph did not want to put Mary through the disgrace of a public trial, so he decided to use the quiet “any cause” divorce that did not require any proof of wrongdoing. Matthew considered that this would be the action of a “just man,” because Joseph could have ensured that he didn’t have to pay Mary’s marriage inheritance if he had decided to prove her guilty of adultery in court. (p. 57)

Countering Hillel was Shammai and his followers, who only saw sexual immorality as a reason for divorce. I-B reports that this controversy “was a matter of huge public debate” (ibid). So, we come to Matt. 19:3 where the rabbis ask Jesus his opinion on the matter. Is it lawful to divorce for any cause, they ask. I-B does not think that our commentators and translations get it right. The rabbis are not asking Jesus if divorce is okay but if “any cause” divorce is okay–based on his reading of this contemporary debate among the rabbis. But what of Mark 10 where the text doesn’t include the “any cause” type language? Here I-B suggests the analogy of someone asking if it is okay for a minor to drink. Here we all understand the question is about alcohol and not drinking liquid. I-B suggests the audience would never consider that what Moses enacted as law would be unlawful. Divorce is allowed, but is “any cause” divorce allowed?

Jesus ignores the debate and tells both groups their mistake per I-B. But when he directly answers, Jesus supports Shimmai’s position and rejects the “any cause” divorce.

I-B points out that most biblical scholars get hung up on the meaning of porneia and miss the context of the rabbinical debates of the day. Jesus, says I-B is only answering the specific question of how to interpret Deut 24:1 and NOT nullifying the other legitimate reasons for divorce that we looked at in previous posts (abandonment, failure to provide food, clothing, and conjugal love). Jesus answers the question at hand but focuses on marriage rather than divorce. I-B again uses the illustration of telling his wife to “just wear the dress” and having her think he means she shouldn’t wear shoes.

The rest of the chapter considers some other parts of Jesus’ teaching. He supports monogamy and when the rabbis try to suggest Moses commands divorce, Jesus retorts and says that Moses allowed it but did not command it (verse 8). I-B suggests that the rabbis heard the “because of your hardheartedness” like this: They heard him quoting Jeremiah 4:4 where divorce and stubbornness are mentioned together.

Jesus thought that people were being too quick to divorce, so he reminds them that Moses meant divorce to occur only when there was “hardheartedness”–that is, a stubborn refusal to repent and stop breaking marriage vows. (p. 63)

I-B reports that the disciples’ response reveals the bombshell of Jesus’ teaching (verse 10). If its like this, maybe it’s better not to marry.” Jesus is radical by suggesting that marriage was optional. Apparently, Jews always saw it as compulsory due to the command to be fruitful.

So, Jesus denies the “any cause” divorce and even suggests that attempts to divorce are not valid and therefore remarriage is an act of adultery. If you are following along in the book, be sure to re-read I-B’s summary of what he thinks is going on in Matt 19 on pp 65-66. He also reminds readers that the Gospel accounts cannot possibly contain all that was said but are shortened to get to the main point.

Mark wrote first and abbreviated the debate as much as possible, but Matthew wrote later, when the debate was more or less over and was less well known. He knew his readers might get confused, so he helped them out by putting a few details back in. (p. 67)

So, what do you do with these proposed ideas about the context in which Jesus is speaking? Are you suspicious that the church could have missed this context for so long? Even I-B raises this question and promises to answer it in a later chapter. If you do use this lens (that Jesus rejects the any cause divorce but supports the sexual immorality cause) then I think it begs the question whether Jesus would agree with hardheartedness as a cause for divorce as well (which I-B wants to have at the bottom of all appropriate divorces; we should forgive even adultery, but divorce only when stubborn refusal to repent is the issue). If that was his point, why was this not clearer in the text. On the other hand, contumacy has long been seen as the cause for divorce (excommunication) from the church. One is not cut off from the church because of any type of sin, but because of a pattern of stubborn refusal to repent and turn.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection, book reviews, christian counseling, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage, Sex, sin

Tagged as , ,

May 15, 2008 · 5:54 am

When a good label loses its value, or, should we rethink labels altogether?


Ever found a word, term, idea that had great meaning for you become useless or degraded because it became popular? Well, maybe that only happens to academic and clinical types. As a counselor terms like idols of the heart, Biblical counselor, integration, christian psychology all are meant to help individuals identify themselves and shape a conversation. At Biblical Seminary, we are attempting to train students to think “missionally.” When we started down this path, not many were using the word. But now it seems everywhere and used in so many ways that make you question whether the word really has any meaning.

So, I’ve had these thoughts from time to time but last night I was reading Paul Wachtel’s (professor at CUNY) “Relational Theory and the Practice of Psychotherapy” and he had this to say about one of his terms, relational. You could easily replace all the relational words with your own favorite term.

[The relational movement] is a loose coalition that is encouraging a diversity in viewpoint rather than seeking to impose a new orthodoxy. But this diversity of meanings also introduces confusion. Students in particular often are unclear about just what it means to be relational, both theoretically and clinically. Some, for example, (mis)understand being relational as being almost relentlessly self-referentially interpreting everything that transpires as being about the therapist.

In part, the problem lies with the very success of the relational movement. As the term “relational” has come into broader and broader use in recent years, there has been a corresponding decrease in the degree to which it communicates a clear and unambiguous meaning. This is perhaps an inevitable cost of success; relational perspectives have become increasingly prominent in the field of psychotherapy, and we have reached a point where many people want to jump onto the bandwagon. As more and more people use the term, sometimes more as a token of membership in a movement to which they wish to belong than as a substantive reference to a clearly specified set of theoretical premises and practices, the ripple of meanings makes a phrase like relational psychotherapy less than ideally precise.

Labels like relational, object relational, classical, or contemporary Freudian (to use examples from the psychoanalytic realm) often serve less as a medium of illuminating discourse than as a functional activity of boundary making, akin to the way our animal cousins leave their  scent to mark off the boundaries of their territory. “I belong here, you belong there,” may be a sentence; but it is a sentence whose message is not very different from what is conveyed by the glands of our mammalian kin. (pp 7-8)

He goes on to say that words should not merely make boundaries but to “alter and complicate” them through the act of conversation. While there are boundaries, they do move and change and no one human created word will adequately separate the sheep and goats, to mix my metaphors.  

So, what do we do with labels if they lose explanatory power when others find them helpful? Get rid of them? Or, do we use them with greater and greater humility. I like Wachtel’s description of the problem with another set of labels, 1person and 2 person approaches to counseling (1 person refers to analysis where the client monologues and interacts with their own psyche and 2 person approaches tend toward a relational, experiential interaction). Wachtel holds a 2 person theory. But here’s what he says,

To begin with, it is worth noting that the distinction [between the two labels] is almost always employed by putative two-person thinkers, as a critique of one-person modes of thought. There are rather few writers who defiantly proclaim, “I am a one-person theorist and proud of it,” although there are, of course, many writers who declare themselves to be proponents of the models that are called one-person models by two-person theorists. Writing as someone who, if the dichotomy is usable at all, would without question fall on the “two-person” side of the divide, I must say I find it disquieting to be characterizing competing theorists in a way they do not acknowledge as the basis of their own thinking.

This lack of acknowledgment on the part of “one-person” theorists, of course, does not in itself invalidate the critiques. It is certainly possible that critics of one-person models are recognizing something about the theories they are criticizing that their advocates do not. Indeed, in certain respects I myself believe this to be the case. It does, however, raise a question as to whether there might be a way to frame the critique that would be more illuminating and experienced as less of a straw man by more traditional theorists.” (p. 11)

I think Wachtel is helpful here and I have said similar ideas in the past. We need to be willing to come at a situation with differing dividing markers than we may have used in the past. For us Christian counselors, this is especially true. Mark McMinn considers himself to be an integrationist. But, his recent book, reviewed here, shows willingness to describe his model in ways that might make older integrative folks uncomfortable (i.e., giving Scripture trump power). So, we need new ways of looking at the data and less focus on division and more focus on description. Maybe we take a little longer look to see what is shared in our venn diagrams… 

2 Comments

Filed under book reviews, christian psychology, Communication, Cultural Anthropology, Doctrine/Theology, Great Quotes, missional, Missional Church, Psychology

Tagged as , , , ,

May 14, 2008 · 5:35 am

Divorce & Remarriage IV: Jesus and the OT


Chapter 4 of Divorce and Remarriage in the church is quite short and has one primary point: Just because we live in the NT age, we do not ignore the OT. Jesus clearly comes to fulfill and to expand on the Law and does not speak against any of the OT–only against false interpretations of it. Some quotables:

Jesus called us to take note of every letter of God’s law, so we cannot simply ignore it. (45)

Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial parts of the law on the cross, but he wants us to fulfill the moral parts of the law, and he even said that he wanted us to be perfect like our Father…. he affirms the principles of these laws [in Matthew 5] and widens their application. (49)

Jesus never criticizes what the Old Testament says, though he frequently criticizes the way people interpret it. He condemns the way some people tried to sidestep the command about oaths by claiming that they were not making a real oath if they swore by “by heaven”… (50)

As you can see, Instone-Brewer is telling us that in the next chapters where we look at the NT data, it ought not be seen as in opposition to the OT but as further explanation of the underlying principles of the OT.

As an aside, he explores 3 possible ways people look at the relationship between the OT and the NT:

1. The OT contains ceremonial and moral laws. In the NT, Jesus fulfills the ceremonial by his sacrifice, leaving us with the moral parts. I-B says the problem with this is that we may not agree as to which is which.
2. Christians follow OT moral principles but not the details (e.g., we no longer stone individuals caught in adultery but we recognize the moral principle behind the prohibition).
3. Ignore any OT laws not mentioned in the NT. Problem here is that rape is not mentioned in the NT.

Finally, I-B warns the reader against seeing the OT as legalism and the NT as grace. God is just as forgiving in the OT as he is in the NT.

Not much for me to add to this except to underline his point about the NT expanding and highlighting the principles of holiness. We recognize that the sin behind adultery is in all who ever lust after another. This helps us avoid pride and arrogance. Now from here we’ll look at the NT writings that relate to divorce and remarriage.  

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Reflection, book reviews, christian counseling, divorce, Doctrine/Theology, marriage

Tagged as ,

April 23, 2008 · 5:31 am

Divorce & Remarriage I: Confusion!


What is the right biblical and pastoral answer for those with real questions concerning divorce and remarriage? David Instone-Brewer in Divorce and Remarriage in the Church (IVP, 2003/6) suggests that much of our current advice and interpretation of Scripture on these matters are not clear nor sensible (hence the need for his book 🙂 )

The trouble with most theologies of divorce is that they aren’t sensible. They may give a reasonable account of most of the texts, in a forced way, but their conclusions just aren’t practical… (p. 13)

Instone-Brewer says most interpretations today fall into 2 camps: (a) there are 2 valid reasons for divorce; remarriage is not allowed unless one person dies, and (b) no grounds for divorce or separation.

The first interpretation isn’t logical says the author. “Why would Jesus and Paul identify these two grounds for divorce but not allow divorce for physical abuse or other harmful situations?” (p. 14) The second option is more logical but no more practical.

Adding to the confusion are those who just decide the bible isn’t practical and so try to extend the texts on divorce to cover adultery, abuse, abandonment, etc. While these are more sensible, their textual support is “dubious.”

Instone-Brewer came to see the texts in new light after studying the text AND first century Judaism and so the remainder of the book will be his conclusions in 4 sections
1. God is a divorcee (OT material). ch 2-4
2. Jesus’ and Paul’s teaching on divorce and remarriage (ch 5-7)
3. How this teaching should work and a look at marriage vows (ch 8-10)
4. Church policy on divorce and what it should do now (ch 11-15)

But the author can’t bear to stop the chapter now so he launches into what he didn’t find in the Bible: the words, “Those whom God has joined, no man can separate.” What Jesus DID say is, “let no one separate.” Why the distinction here? Is Jesus saying it is not possible to separate? If God has joined, then no one can unjoin? Instone-Brewer says no. What it means is that no one SHOULD separate.

Second, who are these words to? The one who causes it? The one who starts the proceedings? You get the inkling that Instone-Brewer believes it is the one who causes vows to be broken. Why? Well, God divorces us but he is the victim.

…his warning is not to the person who finally tidies up the legal mess after the marriage has broken down but to those who would violate their marriage vows and, in so doing, cause the marriage to break up. (p. 18)

Of course people do break their vows all the time and so if they are repentant, I-B says we should forgive them. But if vows are repeatedly broken, then the marriage is, “in shreds.” (p. 19).

Again, I-B can’t wait to reveal his hand later and so concludes (a) the bible only allows victims to initiate divorce and Jesus’ problem with his hearers was that they had abandoned this idea for groundless divorce, and (b) the OT also allows divorce for abuse and neglect.

Well, what do you think? Should biblical intepretations be sensible (to us) and practical? I confess that I have never used sensible when considering whether my interpretation is good–at least knowingly. Seems much doesn’t make sense to me. But, it is an interesting way of thinking about these passages. If they are meant for us to use, they they should be practical, no?

I think he’s shortchanged us by limiting the typical camps on this topic. There are many who believe that there are a limited number of legitimate reasons and in those reasons, remarriage is possible.

For those really wanting to get into the topic, I would recommend two other writers: Jay Adams book on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Also, check out John Piper’s lengthy document. He takes a very conservative (no remarriage) position–even more conservative than the official position of his elders.

Let’s see where I-B goes as he engages the OT next.   

Leave a comment

Filed under biblical counseling, Biblical Reflection, book reviews, christian counseling, Doctrine/Theology, marriage, Relationships

Tagged as , ,

April 17, 2008 · 11:43 am

Next Book Review: Instone-Brewer’s Divorce & Remarriage


It is my plan to review each chapter or two of David Instone-Brewer’s 2003/06 IVP book, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities each Wednesday. I saw an excerpt in a recent Christianity Today magazine which made me interested in digging into his arguments a bit deeper. In order to whet your appetite, here’s a few of his thought in the preface and introduction. Next week we’ll start with chapter 1.

Instone-Brewer reveal shis hand slightly with these two sentences on his first page of text: “My aim in writing this book is to share insights that enabled me to understand the issue of divorce and remarriage through the eyes of the first readers of the New Testament. My hope is that the church will rediscover the biblical principles that divorce should occur only when marriage vows are broken and that only the wronged partner may decide whether this will happen” (p. 7-8).

Being the 1st century Judiasm scholar that he is, he wants us to understand the context of Jesus’ and Paul’s words on divorce. he also thinks that recent discoveries of 1st century documents help us understand what the biblical texts meant to the first readers and thus what they mean for us.

Leave a comment

Filed under book reviews, Doctrine/Theology

Tagged as ,