Category Archives: marriage

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 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 ,

May 12, 2008 · 5:29 am

Practicum Monday: Scott Stanley on Couple Conflicts


Last week in our staff meeting we listened to the end of Scott Stanley’s conference presentation on couples communication. You may remember I blogged previously on his funny but too-true analogy of dogs and marriage (We fall in love with the front end of the puppy/marriage, but they both have backs ends that need to be managed).

In this section of the presentation he makes this statement: events trigger issues. Couples tend to fight about events but really most conflicts are about issues that are deeper (e.g., Who gets the say around here, Do I have influence, Do you care, and other expectation clashes). The challenge is to get couples to see past events to the issues.

Problem: most couples only talk about issues during emotionally charged events. Why? It would be easy to say avoidance. But take that a step further. If the couple is no longer in conflict, why bring up something that is likely to trigger it? As Stanley says, “We’re really getting along right now, so I don’t want to screw it up by talking about a problem.” Seems good in the moment, but bad over time.

Stanley’s point is to deal with this problem by (a) handling events well (time out, staying in the moment, etc.), and (b) being proactive by maintaining safe, open communication about issues. This takes sacrifice, he says. Healthy sacrifice (not martyrdom) is pretty powerful and helpful in moving toward the desires of the other.

Here’s a couple of my thoughts:

Stanley has some great techniques and seems to have a good handle on what goes wrong in conflict. I think many couples can benefit from better care of the “back end” and making sure to remember and reinforce the front end as well. He rightly points out that we can easily miss the good sacrifices others do daily and then only recognize the good when it stops for some reason. If we’re not careful we take for granted the sacrifices of others and come to expect and even demand them as rights.

Stanley’s techniques seem not to work with couples where insight is low, trauma or violence has been a part of it, when folks have personality disorders, or when the couple are deeply entrenched in their bitterness towards each other. All events have meaning. The couple that is not willing to reconsider the meanings they apply to events (she is evil, that is why she leaves the kitchen that way), little couple work is possible. In fact, maybe even contraindicated. Techniques that should help become

weapons to hurt and destroy. Couple counseling is based on the capacity to observe self and other and to withhold judgment to see life from another perspective. Without this, it is hard to make much progress outside of painstaking experiential work.

2 Comments

Filed under christian counseling, conflicts, counseling, counseling science, love, marriage, Psychology

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 3, 2008 · 2:03 pm

Marriage and falling in love with the front end of the puppy


Today in staff meeting, we listened to a CD by Scott Stanley, a researcher and co-author of “Fighting for your Marriage.” I came in late and so missed the full context but he was talking about the fact that we fall in love with the “front end of the puppy” but never the back end. But, every puppy has a back end. Dealing with the back end, he says, isn’t rocket science, but if it isn’t regulated, it will be a problem.

Like every dog, every marriage has a back end. Our challenge is to accept this fact and not try to make our marriages not have a back end. Communication skills are the primary way, for Stanley, to manage the back end of the puppy. If you don’t take turns talking and listening and validating, pretty soon, there’s a lot of poop all over the place and no one feels responsible to clean it up.

Like the image?

7 Comments

Filed under marriage

Tagged as , ,

September 25, 2007 · 9:51 am

Your negative mood and how you view your loved ones


When you experience negative emotion in your most intimate relationships, what do you do? A recent study published in the Journal of Counseling Psychology (54:4, 2007) suggests that we are inclined to place much of the blame on our loved ones. Instead of attributing the problems to external factors (as we tend to do when feeling good), many tend to attribute the cause of their unhappiness to their spouse’s character or behavior. The researchers suggest that when we feel happy we broaden our cognitive focus and when we feel unhappy, we narrow it down to the most salient (convenient?) factors–our spouse’s behavior.

A couple of other interesting factoids that came out of this study. When either partner is unsatisfied in the relationship, the woman engaged in more demanding behaviors (blaming, discussing, putting pressure on the other) as opposed to withdrawing behaviors. When couples improved their relational mood by attributing the positive change to either individual, they were less satisfied than when couples improved their relational mood by attributing the positive change to environmental factors.

Does this make sense to you? Why would couples have more satisfaction if they think external factors account for their positive mood than if they attribute positive change to one or the other? Are we suspicious of our spouse’s motives? Don’t really believe their good behavior will continue?

Here’s why this matters for therapists. As the authors say, we are generally trained to explore a couple’s presenting problem, investigate the history of the problem, and then intervene. They suggest that this will INCREASE the couple’s negative emotions and tempt them to choose a bad solution such as blaming the other or withdrawing. This may suggest that therapists begin couples counseling by increasing positive mood before jumping right into the problem. The authors also remind us of some of Gottman’s research that how a conversation begins has a huge impact on the rest of the conversation and influences the particular problem-solving skills a couple uses.

Leave a comment

Filed under counseling science, counseling skills, marriage

Tagged as ,

May 17, 2007 · 12:58 pm

7 things you can do to vastly improve your marriage


I presented this in class as the ending of our Advanced Marital Counseling class (where we looked at Gottman, Markman and Stanley’s PREP, and Susan Johnson’s EFT). Originally, I and my wife have presented this earlier in a SS setting. Notice that while education about your mate’s love languages and communication skills are helpful, much of what we can do to improve our marriages has to do with what is going on inside us. So, here they are: Continue reading →

Leave a comment

Filed under marriage

May 16, 2007 · 2:08 pm

When grading is really fun


Am working on grading some papers for my Advanced Marital Counseling class. I had my students interview a couple to discern strengths, weaknesses, characteristics of the emotional and relational dance, and then write them a letter summarizing what they observed and possible recommendations. While grading papers aren’t particularly fun, reading these letters was very exciting. Here’s what I observed: Continue reading →

Leave a comment

Filed under marriage, teaching counseling

April 16, 2007 · 9:55 am

Science Monday returns


Snow on April 16???? Now I love snow, but this is a bit much, especially following the rain that is finding all the cracks that lead to my basement. Because of this, the science end of science Monday is a bit thin today.

Today starts our new semester and my class on Emotionally Focused Therapy begins tonight. EFT’s primary goal is to enhance the marital bond. A strong bond weathers all sorts of conflicts and basic human self-centeredness. What two things help us maintain healthy bonds? Continue reading →

1 Comment

Filed under counseling science, marriage