I love to get emails, especially if they are asking questions which aren’t already answered here, or if they are disagreeing with me politely and with Bible-based reasons. Please take a moment to look at previous emails before you write.
Pastoral support doesn't really work by email, so if you need this, I'd encourage you to find a local fellow Christian or minister. Their personal views on this subject don't matter too much if they are good at listening, both to you and to God.
I personally read and answer all emails, though sometimes the reply is brief . In order to save myself being overwhelmed with spam, my computer performs a quick check. It resends the message back to you and asks you to confirm it by simply clicking on "Reply" without adding anything to the message or subject line. This helps you to know that your message has arrived OK, and help me to know that it is not spam.
Click on "email me" below and your email will come to me without appearing on this page. If your question results in a reply which may be useful to others, I may create an anonymized version of your quesion and post it with a general version of the reply.
David Instone-Brewer (email me)
Email your question or problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Record your opinion:
In what circumstances do you believe a Christian may divorce their partner? (tick one or more)
18 comments:
Ok nice web page I did look at the playmobible, and I wish everything could be so easy to read.
I did want to add my comment that the early church fathers and the early church did not believe in remarriage after divorce.
Now the author of the article Instone Brewer claims some new scholarship in this area, but I wonder if this new scholarship could be any more authoritative than the early chuch fathers?, or the new testament for that matter.
Because what would people do who lived in an area that didn't have a book with the exception clause?
Also I believe there is no evidence in the new testament that teaches one can remarry after divorce.
One last comment on porneia. This is my opinion and others have expressed this opinion. Didn't the Phairasees deal a cold blooded insult to Jesus and the parents of Jesus when they told him we were not born of fornication. Why did they choose the word fornication which some believe means an illicit affair in the Jewish betrothel state? The could have chose the word adultery.
I really appreciate the authors articles as I believe this is one of the least discussed topics in the bible.
I found this site using [url=http://google.com]google.com[/url] And i want to thank you for your work. You have done really very good site. Great work, great site! Thank you!
Sorry for offtopic
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!
One of the best chapters on divorce and remarriage I've ever read was found in the book, "Boerewors to Baklava, Gentile to Jerusalem."
Written by Paul a.k.a the barefoot heretic........brilliant
www.thebarefootheretic.com
Some have argued that there is a real difference between someone that has been "put away" and someone that has been "divorced."
I'm curious to know if this is something you've already looked at, and if so what conclusions you came to and why.
Walter L. Callison proposes in his book, Divorce, the Law, and Jesus:
That ἀπολύω (apoluó, G630, put away) paralells שָׁלַח (shalach, H7971, to send away) as seen in Malachi 2:16 and NOT כְּרִיתוּת (kerithuth, H3748, a cutting of the marriage bond) as seen in Jeremiah 3:8. (Please forgive me if my Greek or Hebrew aren't what they should be) The first, maintaining a legal marital bond but failing to afford the spouse any of her marital benefits. The second, granting a legal dissolvement of the marriage by way of a divorce certificate, which afforded her the legal power to marry again.
The paper, he argues, makes a difference.
Do you believe a real difference between the two (i.e. "put away" and "divorced") may be proven?
The important possibility being of course, that in the Gospel passages dealing with a woman "put away," and someone new marrying her (Mat. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18), the woman would still be legally married (i.e. without a divorce certificate), thus OBVIOUSLY making her an adulteress for marrying anyone new, while still being legally married to her husband, and likewise the man that marries her, as he would be committing adultery with her against her husband.
You are right that some people see a difference in this terminology.
In my study of how these Greek terms were used in actual legal documents of the time, I found that they were synonymous (see here.
The OT commanded that ANY woman you divorce should be given a divorce certificate (Deut.24.1). ALthough there may have been some women who were sent away without one (like the modern day agunot), no law-abiding Jew would do this.
Fantastic goods from you, man. I have understand your stuff previous to and you are just too excellent. I really like what you have acquired here, really like what you’re saying and the way in which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still care for to keep it wise. I cant wait to read much more from you. This is really a great site.
As a parent trying to give my children a bases for a strong Christian marriage I want biblical truths. When Jesus was asked He went back to the original intent. Old Testiment divorce was permitted because of the "hardness of their hearts" We loose God's design when we make allowances. Jesus did not leave room for a divorce person to remarry without committing adultery. My we never be guilty of a hardened heart.
Dear David,
You may remember me from Tyndale. Finished my PhD in Aberdeen, now a Vicar in Bournemouth.
Been reading your D& R in the B.
Some Comments:
1. have you read Harper's article on porneia in the recent JBL? Seems convincing to me.
2. DSS. If it not possible that there are 2 views? One a strict one in CD and a looser one in 11Q.
3. Given that Mark & Luke were written to Gentiles, would the 1st readers have picked up the Rabbinic debate? Would they not have read these 2 gospels as very tight on divorce & remarriage?
4. While your work on the Rabbinic debate is very convincing, could there not be 2 views in the NT? Matthew & Paul on the looser side & Luke & Mark on the tighter side? If so, one could synthesize by stating that remarriage is never recommended but is condoned for the innocent partners of vlid divorces.
5. I fail to see why you believe that allowing only the innocent to remarry is "legalistic" given your whole argument is based on marriage as a legal contract, and valid divorce depends on legal grounds. The point about " guilt" & "innocence" in terms of remarriage are merely "legal" do not necessarily imply spiritual innocence. Further, on your view if a husband dislikes his wife & wants to remarry, that would be invalid but if he commits adultery then the divorce would be valid & he could remarry!
Would be good get your views on my points.
Best Wishes,
Ro
Ro Mody, Bournemouth
Mo, Good to hear from you.
I agree it is possible there were differing views in the Jewish world as you suggest. It is always difficult defining exactly who taught what when the data is so sparse.
I'm not so convinced when you find two different views in the NT - esp when Matt and Mark are clearly using the same material. If Mark taught a stricter view by omitting some of Jesus' words, or if Matthew taught a looser view by adding words to Jesus, then we can't trust them to convey Jesus' teaching. One of them should be thrown out of the NT for deliberately misleading their readers about what Jesus taught. In my analysis they are both saying the same thing, and both representing Jesus accurately.
I agree about your comments on legalism - that if a church wants to be legalistic, it has sufficient excuses. However, this does mean that some kind of church court has to decide who is the guilty party and who is innocent. A divorce is often like a fight between two toddlers - it is usually impossible to find out who started it, or to find anyone who is still 'innocent' at the end.
Recently Robert Gagnon has published a critique of your views on his website http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/DivorceOUPEntrySexualityS.pdf
Have you interacted with his material in any public manner that is accessible. (Dr. Gagnon mentions that you and he interacted privately on these issues).
I want to add a thank you, as well, for your work. It has been helpful to me.
Richard, I did recently send him a response, at his request, but I don't think he has posted it yet. He made some good points in his post, but sometimes he was criticising a misunderstanding of what I'd said. But if we all understood each other clearly, life would be boring.
Hi Dr. Instone-Brewer,
I just listened to your interview with the program "Christian Meets World". It was good to get some fresh insights, particularly on biblical submission. Thank you for your clarity. Thank you as well, for your mercy.
I fear that the muddy thinking and incomplete conclusions of the contemporary christian view of divorce and remarriage, is driving many many people to liberal theology, for support and sympathy. We do a disservice to the Kingdom when we misrepresent God in our interpretation of His views upon this issue that is breaking the hearts of so many both within and without the church.
It seems to me that the biggest issue is the legalistic application of "fault" and "no fault" in the Christian context. We cannot legislate loving marriages. We cannot "make" fidelity, responsibility, and godly character mandatory conditions of marriage. We must encourage and exhort each other as christians to be loving, faithful and responsible in all relationships, including marriage, through the grace and power of our Lord Jesus Christ. To think that we can preserve a marriage by forcing a broken union to maintain the facade of unity is simply legalism. In my experience, it is easier for the church to require a woman to submit to an unkind man than it is to require a man to be a loving husband. So, submission is appealed to in order to preserve marriage. The partner with the more sensitive conscience, and the greater desire to honor God, that becomes the martyr not for God, but for the church. Over and over, God referred to the heart. It is the heart that matters. If the heart is right, the outward actions will become right.
In the last days men (and women) will be "lovers of themselves". To think that the sins of selfishness, greed and idol worship that permeate our culture will not also sadly permeate our marriages, is to be naive about the spiritual battle we face as a church.
Hi, Jesus was fairly clear on this issue, not really leaving much room for doubt:
Luke 16:14-18
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. 15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves [a]in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable [b]in the sight of God.
16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God [c]has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one [d]stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.
18 “Everyone who [e]divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is [f]divorced from a husband commits adultery.
Post a Comment