Questions and Problems about Divorce and Remarriage

Email your question or problem.

2022-10-16T15:44:00.000-07:00

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)
www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Is there really an 'exception' in the Greek of Matt.19.9?

2009-06-08T04:08:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
Some scholars point out that the original Greek of Matt.19.9 probably didn't say "except" but said "not" or "excluding", so that there is no exception for adultery in Matt.19. What version of the Greek text are you relying on?

Reply:
I have used the more common Greek version in my study, but the conclusions of my work aren’t any different when the other reading is used. However, the question is interesting.

There have been some very useful studies by Allen Guenther, Paul Dixon and Leslie McFall. The second two point out that Erasmus was probably wrong when he used the text "ei mé" ('except') in Mt.19.9. The original Greek was probably simply "mé" ('not'). Allen points out that even if the text was "ei mé", the normal way to translate this is “excluding” not “excepting”. This leads them to conclude that Jesus did not allow divorce for adultery in Matt.19.

BTW, I welcome scholarship which looks deeply into these issues, whatever conclusions it comes to. Leslie is a good friend of mine, and Allen’s article is published in a journal of which I am an editor. Every avenue needs to be explored in scholarship, and no stone unturned in our search for the eternal truths of the Bible.

They have pointed out a very important fact – that our early Bibles, including the King James version, relied on a Greek text which may be defective at Matt.19.9. It is likely that the original text said (literally)

“whoever divorces his wife not (mé) [for] immorality (porneia) and marries another, commits adultery”

whereas most translations are based on a text which says:

“whoever divorces his wife except (ei mé) for immorality (porneia) and marries another, commits adultery”

The meaning of the simple mé without the ei is rather unclear, but the most likely meaning is “excluding”. Allen pointed out that even if the text reads ei mé it can also be translated as “excluding”. So the question comes down to: does Matt.19.9 mean “excluding” or “excepting”.

So why do almost all English Bibles translate it as "except"? Partly because it makes better sense, but mainly because Matthew makes clear that this is the meaning in the parallel at Mt.5.32:

The two verses are very similar, but with several small differences, as seen when we translate them over-literally to highlight these differences:

Matt. 5.32: But I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife except (parektos) for a cause of immorality makes her commit adultery.

Matt. 19.9: And I say to you that whoever has divorced his wife if not (ei mé) for immorality and marries another commits adultery.

The two versions are clearly saying the same thing - that if you get remarried after the type of divorce Jesus is talking about, you are committing adultery. In other words, the divorce is invalid, so you are committing adultery because you are still married. In Matt.19.9 he points out this consequence applies to the man who does this divorcing, and in Matt.5 he points out it also applies to his wife. Jesus presumably applied it to both when he spoke on the subject, and also said much more, but Matthew had to summarise it.

Jesus didn’t speak in Greek, so Matthew is translating Jesus' words, and his translation is different in these two versions at almost every phrase.

* Matt.5 starts with ego de logo humin 'I however say to you' while Matt.19 has logo de humin 'And I say to you'

* Matt.5 uses pas 'everyone', and Matt.19 uses hos an 'whoever'.

* Matt.5 uses apoluon 'divorcing', and Matt.19 uses apolusé 'may have divorced'.

* Matt.5 he has 'logou porneias 'a cause of immorality’ and Matt.19 has simply porneia 'immorality'.

* Matt.5 applies this to the wife ('causes her to commit adultery') and Matt.19 applies it to the man who did the divorcing ('he commits adultery')

* Matt.5 uses parektos 'except' (Guenther's article shows this is clearly the meaning) and Matt.19 uses ei mé

The fact that he has slightly different Greek for 'except' in both passages does not surprise me. In fact, given all the other variations, it would be surprising if he had translated it exactly the same way in both. Even the earliest church commentators understood this to mean "except". Origen (2nd C) already did so, and even added ei to make it absolutely clear that it means “except”: "He hinders any one putting away a wife, unless (ei mé) she be caught in fornication.... (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 14.24.44, ANF)

This leaves us with a question. Why didn't Matthew use ei mé epi which would have been unambiguous? I don't know for sure, but I suspect it was because he was trying to translate Jesus' words exactly. The Aramaic or Rabbinic Hebrew for 'except' would be 'ala' im which is literally 'not if' - and the Greek ei mé is literally 'if not'.

But it didn't really matter whether Matthew left out the ei or not - everyone would have understood him. The context makes the meaning very clear. The Pharisees have asked Jesus about a particular type of divorce which they were currently debating about - the "Any Cause" divorce. Jesus condemned the Any Cause divorce which was invented by the Hillelite Pharisees to allow divorce for any little thing. The Hillelites had created their new 'Any Cause' divorce by dividing the phrase “a cause of immorality” (Dt.24.1) into two ground for divorce – ‘immorality’ and 'a cause'. Jesus thought that this denied the plain meaning of the phrase which was only talking about one type of divorce. Jesus happened to agree with the Shammaites on this occasion, though on other matters Jesus disagreed with the Shammaites – when there are only two points of view, you have to agree with someone! The Shammaites had pointed out that this whole phrase refers to one type of divorce - ie it refers to 'nothing except immorality'. Jesus quoted their slogan to show his agreement and concluded that anyone who used the ‘Any Cause’ type of divorce wasn't properly divorced - so if they remarried they were committing adultery.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter whether you translate this as “excepting” or “excluding”. It comes to the same thing.

If you ignore the fact that “Any Cause” was a type of 1^st century divorce which Jews were debating at the time of Jesus, you would understand Jesus’ conclusion as:

"Whoever divorces his wife [for any cause], excepting/excluding immorality, then if they remarry they are committing adultery [because their divorce is invalid]

If you emphasise the mé as a simple “not” instead of “excepting”, then you could understand Jesus’ conclusion as:

"Whoever divorces his wife [for any cause], not [even for] immorality, then if they remarry they are committing adultery [because their divorce is invalid]

If you take into account the debate about the “Any Cause” divorce which was derived from Deut.24.1, you would understand Jesus’ conclusion as:

"Whoever divorces his wife [for ‘Any Cause’, which isn’t in Deut.24.1], unless this is for immorality [which is in Deut.24.1], then if they remarry they are committing adultery [because their divorce is invalid]”.

Of course Jesus would not be pedantic and include all the words in square brackets. His meaning was obvious to his listeners who knew all about the new popular divorce for ‘Any Cause’. For us, his message is more obscure until we stand in their shoes.

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Am I to be single forever because this guy left me and wouldn't reconcile?

2007-12-26T07:24:00.002-08:00

Someone emailed:
I read your book a few years ago but still haven't found an answer for myself. I was married many years ago to a man for a few months. I had just been saved. He was a Christian too, but he divorced me after a few months because he said he had made a mistake and I didn't make him happy. I tried to reconcile with him for several years but he refused. It's been many years not and I've remained single out of confusion. I don't know where I stand with God. So many people tell me I am unable to remarry and must be single. I find it hard to believe that God has consigned me to a life of singlehood but I guess I deserve it for marrying someone when I didn't have peace about it. But I was a baby Christian and didn't know too much. Am I to be single forever because this guy left me and wouldn't reconcile? I guess I do deserve it.

Reply:
I am saddened to think that you have carried the guilt of this broken relationship when you were not the person who broke it up, and you are the one who tried hardest at reconciliation.

In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul addresses this problem. He tells the believer who divorces without proper grounds that they should be reconciled, and remain unmarried to make sure reconciliation remains possible (v.10-11).

But in your case, although your ex-husband was a Christian, he chose not to obey Paul's command, even when you were asking him for reconciliation. Paul addressed this situation in v.15 when he talked about someone who was divorced against their will by someone who would not obey Paul. The person Paul was talking about in v.15 was a non-believer, because at that time it was unthinkable that a believer would disobey an apostle. It applies in your situation because your ex-husband acted like an unbeliever.

Paul tells the believer in v.15 that they are "no longer bound". He didn't say what they were "no longer bound" to, because he assumes that the reader will know what this means. In the first century all of his readers would have understood this because all Jewish divorce certificates (and some non-Jewish ones) included the words "You are now free to marry anyone you wish". When Paul quotes these words in v.39 (where he says the same rights apply to a widow) he adds the restriction that the "anyone" should be a believer.

I discuss all this in "When your Partner Walks Out" in Divorce and Remarriage in the Church.

What this means in your case is that your ex-husband should not have broken his marriage vows by deserting you and divorcing you. You have already waited a very long time for him to repent and be reconciled, and there is no practical possibility that this will happen. Paul's words to the person divorced against their will by an unbeliever apply to you, because your ex-husband has acted like an unbeliever. You are now "no longer bound" – ie you are now "free to marry".

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Any marriage can be rescued

2007-11-09T13:37:00.000-08:00

Someone emailed:
The wonderful truth of the Gospel is that, through the atoning blood of Jesus, forgiveness and reconciliation are possible. This is a "righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees".

Does that mean that you MUST forgive and reconcile? Well, Jesus taught us to forgive "seventy times seven times". He went above and beyond the traditional teaching of his time. The disciples exclaimed that "this is a hard teaching". And it's true. Forgiveness and reconciliation are not for wimps or pushovers.

But forgiveness does not mean that you trust the person who harmed you. And it does not mean that you must continue to endure the abuse, shame, neglect, and sin of the other person. It means that you are willing to let go of the desire to ragefully punish the person who harmed you. You give vengeance to the One who said "Vengeance is mine". In other words, you let God be God and you acknowledge that you are also a sinner in need of grace.

All this debate about when divorce is allowed ... we're missing the point. The point is that any marriage CAN be saved and reconciled by God's grace and the gentle restoration of spiritually mature people.

Reply: I agree that reconcilliation and forgiveness should always be the first reaction of a believer, and repentance should be urged from their partner. Jesus was different from the Pharisees who said that Moses commanded us to divorce an adulterer. Jesus said divorce was only "allowed" by Moses, and only when the marriage vows were broken "hardheartedly" (an OT word meaning stubbornly unrepentant).
When someone constantly carries on breaking their marriage vows, there comes a point when forgiveness is merely condoning further sin. Eventually the wronged partner has to say: Enough is enough - this sinning must end. At that point they have to take the very difficult step of saying that they will get legal recognition that the marriage has been irreparably broken - ie they will file for divorce - if their partner does not change their behaviour.
This is always a very difficult decision and can never be decided by anyone except the person who may be suffering constant mind-numbing abuse out of the public eye. We cannot tell, outside the marriage, how much suffering is going on inside.
It is, as you say, wonderful that the blood of Jesus wipes away all sin, and that believers are given the strength to forgive and forgive. It would be wonderful if all sinning spouses repented, so that all marriages could be saved, but sometimes even those who call themselves believers carry on sinning and sinning without reprentance or without changing their ways. And sometimes divorce is the right way forward, but only the victim can decide when that point has arrived.
Even God reluctantly divorced Israel when broke her marriage vows again and again. See the details in my Divorce and Remarriage in the Church.

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Wasn't adultery a capital offence?

2007-11-09T13:08:00.000-08:00

Someone emailed:
Could you comment on which sorts of immorality the school of Shammai believed were covered by Deut. 24:1, but not by Deut. 22:22? Dead people don't get divorced, so did they have a different category of indecency that wasn't adultery?

Reply: You are right to point out the potential contradiction between Deut.24.1 (which talks about divorce for "a matter of indecency") and Deut.22.22 (which says an adulterer must die). If there was a death sentence for adultery, how could anyone get divorced for adultery?
There are various potential solutions for this contradiction. Perhaps the law of Old Testament was already changing during OT times - after all, Nathan did not call for Bathsheba's death. Or perhaps "a matter of indecency" was something less than adultery? The precise meaning of Deut.24.1-4 is something which scholars are still looking into, and I haven't seen any fully convincing explanation of what the original case law was about.
By New Testament times the Jews had lost the authority to carry out a death penalty for adultery or any other matter (see John 18:31), so they said that it was compulsory to divorce a woman for adultery. Although they cited Deut.24.1 as proof of this, they were, as you point out, not using Scripture entirely in its context. And they were certainly wrong to say that divorce was commanded by Moses.
Jesus corrected them on two counts - he said that Moses didn't "command" divorce for adultery (or for any other cause) but he only "allowed" it, and only when there was hardheartedness (ie stubborn and unrepentant breaking of marriage vows).
Secondly Jesus cited the words of Deut.24.1 very accurately by using the general Greek word "porneia" - a term which is used in the NT for adultery, prostitution, fornication, incest and for sexual sin in general. Jesus didn't make the mistake of translating it "adultery" (according to Matthew).
Jesus didn't tell us what exactly his interpretation of Deut.24.1 was, except to say that he disagreed with the Pharisees who found two types of divorce: the 'any cause' divorce and 'divorce for adultery'. Jesus said that Deut.24.1 referred to only one type of divorce, for 'a matter of indecency' (porneia), so that anyone who got divorced for 'any cause' had an invalid divorce.
So you are right to point out the potential contradiction between these two verses. As you can see, Jesus' interpretation did not fall into the same mistakes as the Pharisees.

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Now you're in trouble! - see the Time Magazine piece on you.

2007-11-06T12:43:00.002-08:00

Someone emailed:
Now you're in trouble! - see the Time Magazine piece on you. It makes you look "flexible" and trying to find what you want in the Bible.

Reply: The Time Magazine correspondant, David Van Biema, interviewed me for the piece, and did a fairly good job of summarising my already summarised article, but unless you have read my book I doubt you'll get a balanced view of what I'm saying.
The main problem with the article is 'linkage'. I'm linked with people who want to find loop-holes for divorce rather than find out what the Bible actually says, and the article hints that the same methods can be used to eventually allow homosexual practice, whereas the opposite is true (as Gagnon has convincingly shown).
As I'm sure you know, my book shows that Jesus emphasised forgiveness for broken marriage vows rather than divorce, though he allowed divorce when marriage vows are repeatedly and hardheartedly broken.
They say that no publicity is bad publicity, but only if people take the time to get behind the headlines and investigate further for themselves. Still, I can't complain, because abbreviation by the Gospels is what made Jesus' teaching on divorce so difficult!

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Are you against male headship in marriage?

2007-10-25T12:02:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
You have said that the marriage vow about obedience is optional. Does this mean that you are against male headship in marriage?

Reply: Headship or equality is a matter to be decided by each couple, preferably before they get married, along with other important matters such as who looks after the money, whether they want children, and whose career determines where they should live.

In NT times the subjection of women, children and slaves to the head of the household was a universally held ideal.

This is comparable to our modern belief that democracy is better than monarchy or theocracy which are the only models of government in Scripture. Most Christians are happy to affirm democracy so long as there are certain limitations, such as respecting the rights of minorities, and secret voting so that individuals cannot be intimidated.

In a similar way, Paul was willing to affirm his society's universal belief about family order, so long as there are certain limitations. Slaves should not be ill-treated, children should be respected, and married couples should "submit to each other" (Eph.5.21). He allowed the concept of 'headship' so long it is was like that of God being the head of Christ (1Cor.11.3) - ie an equality of purpose and importance. He agreed that man was created first (1Cor.11.8; 1Tim.2.13) but he pointed out that every man is born of a woman (1Cor.11.11-12).

Modern Christians can no longer affirm the submission of slaves, but we can still affirm the headship of husbands over wives, so long as the wife chooses to obey in equality, just as Jesus chose to do the will of his Father. Some households work better when the male head of the house makes all the decisions, and some work better when the adult all have an equal say. The NT affirms both the headship model (within limits) and the equality model. It is up to each family to agree about what model they work best with, and outsiders should not demand that they follow one path or another.
For more see The vow to obey in Divorce & Remarriage in the Church

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

If a partner moves out, when can we consider that a valid divorce has happened?

2007-10-25T11:59:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
You point out that in the Greaco-Roman world of the early church there was no concept of the modern day notion to seperate from you partner for a time and then to eventually get divorced. Biblically speaking, when should a person be considered to be divorced - once a person permanently moves out, or once it is declared annulled in a court of law? And also, it seems from your writings that you are not in favor of long seperations. What is the reason for this?

Reply: The Bible doesn't tell us when a person should be considered to be divorced, but lets try to work it out from biblical principles. It is the wronged partner who has the right to decide that the marriage contract has been broken and they won't continue to forgive. So the marriage comes to an end when the wronged partner decides that it has ended. When Paul wrote 1Cor.7.11 about the woman who had separated from her husband (thereby divorcing him) he told her not to remarry and to try for reconciliation. Why wasn't she allowed to remarry? - because she had divorced someone against their will. The divorce would not be valid till her former partner decided that it was over, and so she was stuck, unable to remarry, till he did so.

I didn't realise I said anything about long separations, but you are right that I am against them. Mainly because Paul tells that woman in 1Cor.7.10f in as strong language as possible, that she should not have separated (v.10). She had already disobeyed this, so he tells her in v.11 to try to reverse what she has done by remaining unmarried and attempting reconciliation. Paul also says that couples should not even separate for the seemingly good excuse that they want to spend more time in prayer - except perhaps for short periods.

Does a trial separation help to heal marriages? I suspect that they help to break them much more often than they help to heal.
For more on abandonment see When Your Partner Walks Out in Divorce & Remarriage in the Church

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

My wife says she will contest a divorce citing her behaviour, so can I use a no-fault divorce?

2007-10-25T11:56:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
I have just read your book, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church. I'm currently seeking divorce in order to escape an emotionally abusive wife, and I have a question. She is saying that she will fight a divorce petition that quotes her unreasonable behaviour, because she is still completely in denial about it all. It would be so much easier and peaceful to go along with a no-fault divorce, but you mention in your book that it appears to be wrong to attempt a "no fault" divorce as a Christian. However, didn't Joseph plan to divorce Mary quietly although he had (it seemed) very clear grounds for a big noisy divorce?

Reply: You have a very good point, which I have not thought about enough. In effect you are saying that your divorce would be based on a fault which can be regarded as a biblical ground (ie emotional abuse) but that this fault would not be cited in the legal proceedings.

This is roughly the logic which I assume lay behind Paul's conclusion in 1Cor.7.15 when he said that the person was "no longer bound" - ie free to remarry. The person in question had been divorced against their will by the Roman divorce-by-separation, which Paul regarded as non-biblical. When a woman in Corinth did this, Paul told her to try and reverse it (v.10-11), but when it was done against a believer by a non-believer (ie someone whom Paul couldn't order to return to their spouse), Paul says the abandoned person is free. In other words, when someone was abandoned against their will, using a non-fault divorce, Paul allowed this to be regarded as a biblical divorce on the grounds of abandonment, even though abandonment was not cited in any legal process.

I would conclude from this that God is not so much interested in the human legal processes, but he is concerned that we try, as far as we are able, to keep our side of the marriage vows, and forgive (as long as we are able) the failure of our spouse to keep those same vows. But in the end, the wronged partner has a right to call a halt to a broken marriage, whatever is actually cited in court.
For more on recognising a valid divorce when a no-fault divorce was used, see Abandonment is 'neglect' in Divorce & Remarriage in the Church

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

If a marriage breaks down, we know they weren't really joined by God, so they can divorce.

2007-10-25T11:49:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
I heard a testimony from someone who said the Lord told him to divorce when he read Matthew 19, "What God has joined together, let no man separate". He said his wife wasn't a believer, so God hadn't joined them, and so this verse said he could get divorced. He also said this would apply to someone who had been disobedient to God in their choice of a life partner, which they would find out when the marriage broke down, because if God had joined them, it wouldn't have broken down. Do you think this is a legitimate way of reasoning?

Reply: Well, it is certainly ingenious - he should train as a lawyer! No, I don't agree that he can argue this way. I guess that the Corinthians were saying something very similar because they started divorcing their non-believing partners. Paul's answer is that in God's eyes a marriage to a non-believer is just as valid as a marriage to a believer, otherwise their children would be illegitimate in God's eyes! (1Cor.7.12-14).

When Jesus talks about "those whom God has joined" I understand this as a reference to the marriage vows which have been made before God, which must not be broken. Even if someone did not mean these vows, or did not consider them to be made in God's presence, they are still bound to keep the vows which they made.
Anyone who makes a promise to a person should keep it, and if they make a promise before a court they can be held in contempt if they don't keep it, and even sent to prison. But if they make a promise before God and don't keep it they have sinned - which is much more serious than any contempt of an earthly court.
For more on abandonment by non-believers see When Your Partner Walks Out in Divorce and Remarriage in the Church

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Priests may not marry divorcees - and aren't we a 'Kingdom of Priests'?

2007-10-25T11:34:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
Leviticus says that priest should not marry divorced women (Lev.21.7). Perhaps this means that believers should not marry divorcees, because we are called a royal priesthood (1Peter.2.5). Although the literal laws about priests no longer apply to us, don't they still indicate God's general will for us?

Reply: This is a very interesting suggestion, but if we look at it more carefully, it leads to an absurd and contradictory conclusion. I agree that we are like priests, and that we should strive to be as holy as possible. That principle would imply that we should follow the more stringent rules laid down for High Priests in the old Temple and for all priests in the New Temple, who may not marry a woman who is divorced or widowed (Lev.21.13f; Ezek.44.22). So, if we follow this principle to its conclusion, believers should not marry widows, and yet Timothy is told to encourage Christian widows to marry (1 Tim.5.14).
Therefore it is better to regard the prohibition of priests marrying divorcees and widows as part of the symbolism of separation and purity, which is also seen in the clothes they wear, the way they cut their hair (Lev.20.5), the fact that they eat the edible parts of offerings, the way they serve in the Temple etc. They are set apart as different, holy, and separate, just as God is set apart, separate, and distant. But Jesus' death split the curtain and removed the barrier, bringing man and God together. There is no longer a separate priesthood because we are all priests, and there are no longer various stages of holiness between us and God because the Holy Spirit lives in all believers.

We are all priests, but we do not eat different food, or wear different clothes, or have different marriage regulations. The point about us ALL being priests is that these distinctions all disappeared when Christ broke all barriers down.
For Christians one type of food is no less holy than any other, and a divorcee is no less holy than someone who has never been married.
For more on our use of the Old Testament see The Church Can’t Do Without It in Divorce and Remarriage in the Church

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Isn't it a Scriptural command that husbands should submit to their wives?

2007-10-25T11:04:00.001-07:00

Someone emailed:
You touch on the issue of wives subjecting to husbands, but you appear to treat this as if it was not a Scriptural command. But it says in black and white: "Wives submit to your husbands" (Eph.5.22).

Reply: Paul appears to have a complex position on the role of women, on the one hand saying that they should be silent and submissive (1Cor.14.34; Eph.5.22) and on the other hand allowing them to pray and prophesy and teaching couples to "submit to each other" (1Cor.11.5, 13; Eph.5.21). The fact that he puts these different emphases very close to each other suggests that this is a conscious disparity and not an accidental contradiction - ie he wants us to think about these things carefully.

However we should take seriously the charge that Paul is contradicting himself.

Many books have been written on this subject, so I can only cover the issues very briefly. In an academic paper I concluded that the words "Wives submit to your husbands" is a quotation by Paul and Peter from an Aristotelian moral handbook.

The same source was used by Philo and Josephus who also quoted "children should submit to their fathers" and "slaves should submit to their masters", just like Paul and Peter do (Eph.5.22--6.9; Col.3.18--4.1; 1Tim.2.9-3.7; 6.1-2; Tit.2.3-10; 1Pet.2.18--3.7; Philo Hypothetica 7.2-3; Josephus Contra Apion 2.24, 201).

If this is so, the phrase "wives should submit to their husbands" has the same status as Paul's quote from his Corinthian correspondents that "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" ( (1Cor.7.1) and his quote from a Greek poet that "Cretans are always liars" (Tit.1.12). Such quotations are in Scripture but they are man's words, not God's words.

This does not mean that Paul did not teach women to submit to their husbands - he clearly did. But we have to ask ourselves why?

Facts which virtually everyone agrees with:

1) There were no women among the 12 top leaders of the NT church
2) Paul said and Peter said women should submit to their husband, just as their children and slaves did, and no woman should "teach or have authority over a man" (1Tim.2.12).
3) Paul & Peter also said that women should not wear jewelry or expensive clothes or use hairdressers (1Tim.2.9; 1Pet.3.2) and should wear their matrimonial veil (1Cor.11.4-5)
4) Paul and Peter said that women were like this in the OT, and that acting differently was shameful, dishonouring, not respectable, and ungodly (1Cor.11.5; 14.35; 1Tim.2.9-10)

Historians tell us that Roman women at this time had recently gained equality with men. They gained:- freedom to spend their own money on what they wanted, and they lavished it on fashion- freedom to divorce and marry as they wanted, and many ended up doing so repeatedly- freedom from submission to the head of the household - ie their husband or father (though children and slaves still had to submit to head of the household, as before)- and many also helped themselves to sexual equality by taking lovers like the men did- all women wore a matrimonial veil unless they never married or they were prostitutes but some women stopped wearing it, as a sign of their freedom

The world was going through a social revolution which turned out to be a revolution of sexual immorality. Women who exercised their freedom by not submitting to their husbands or spending money on expensive fashions were therefore assumed to be living immorally.

Paul and Peter told believers to follow the old moral codes of the previous centuries, when women submitted to their husbands and dressed moderately.
Jewish leaders, like Philo and Josephus, also advised Jews to follow this older moral code which they summarised (following Aristotle) in the same way as the New Testament does:
1) Women should obey their husbands
2) Children should obey their fathers
3) Slaves should obey their masters
(NT: Eph.5.22--6.9; Col.3.18--4.1; 1Tim.2.9—3.7; 6.1-2; Tit.2.3-10; 1Pet.2.18--3.7Judaism: Philo Hypothetica 7.2-3; Josephus Contra Apion 2.24, 201)

Both Christians and Jews had problems with this moral code, and added limitations, eg:1) Wives should submit but also husbands should love them and not be harsh (Col.3.18-19)2) Children should obey but also fathers should not exasperate them (Col.3.20-21)3) Slaves should obey but also masters should be fair and not threaten them (Eph.6.5-9)

The NT also taught that men, women and slaves are all equal (Gal.3.28; 1Cor.12.13)
Why did Christians keep these morals if they were not entirely sure about them? 1) If a Christian wife doesn't submit to her husband, the gospel will be slandered (Tit.2.5)2) If a Christian wife submits to her husband, he is more likely to be converted (1Pet.3.1)3) Similarly, if a Christian slave does not submit, the gospel will be slandered (1Tim 6.1)

If they did not keep this basic moral code people assumed they were 'immoral', like people who assume that all women who go clubbing or wear short skirts are living immoral lives.

There are two main views about what we should do:

A) Follow the command that women should be submissive and not have authority over men - and therefore they should not teach (because teachers were in authority)

B) Follow the reason for the command, that our lifestyle should not scandalise the gospel - and therefore we should not enforce an ancient Greek morality of inequality

Additional reasons for following the command, that women should submit:

1) Paul and Peter use the OT as additional arguments- a) Adam was created first, and Eve fell, so only men should teach (1Tim.2.13-14) BUT one could say Paul was being ironic, because Adam should have known better- b) Sarah called her husband 'Lord', as did all the old saintly women (1Pet.3.6) BUT 'husband' and 'lord' are the same word in Hebrew, so what else could they do?

2) If you start looking for reasons behind commands, where will this stop?

Additional reasons for following the reason, that we should not scandalize the gospel:

1) Women filled as many leadership roles as the church could get away with in that society:- deaconesses (1Tim.3.11) - perhaps deacon's wives, but with leadership roles - Paul's 'co-workers' (Rom.16, 3, 6, 12, 16; Phil.4.2-3), including the teaching team of Priscilla and Aquillus (she is named first, Act.18.26; Rom.16.3; 2Tim.4.19)- convenors (or leaders?) of House Churches (Act.16.40; 12.12; Col.4.15; 1Cor.1.11)- prophets (Act.2.37-38; 21.8-14; 1Cor.11.5)- perhaps an Apostle (Rom.16.7 - Junia is a very common female name, but some texts changed this to the male form 'Junias' which is completely unknown) BUT they never taught or preached or had any other role of high authority in the church

2) The phrase "Wives should submit" is a quote from elsewhere, like "It is good not to touch a woman" (1Cor.7.1) and "Cretans are always liars" (Tit.1.12), which have no inspired status. BUT it appears to be quoted as something to agree with, so it becomes part of God's word

My personal conclusion from all this is that couples have to decide for themselves how to order their marriage. Paul was willing to affirm the Aristotelian model of submission to the head of the household. His reasons for doing so was for the promotion of the gospel. But we also should be willing to affirm it for the sake of marriages in which it is adopted by mutual choice and where it works well. But we should also point out that it is not the only model.
For more see The vow "to obey" in Divorce & Remarriage in the Church

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

If a wife is abused, should she see this as an opporunity to share in Christ's sufferings?

2007-10-25T10:58:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
If a wife is suffering unjustly from a neglectful or abusive husband should she see this as an opportunity to share in Christ's sufferings instead of as a reason to opt out of the marriage?

Reply: She MAY treat this as an opportunity to share in Christ's sufferings, just as someone who is being victimised at work by religious or sexual discrimination can decide to simply suffer it. Or a child who is bullied at school or a man who is mugged or a woman who is raped can decide to say nothing and bring no charges against their persecutors. This is their right, but it is not their obligation.

Jesus DID encourage people to forgive those who broke their marriage vows, and forgive and forgive again. He said they should only divorce "for hardness of heart" - a reference to Jer.4.4 which is the only place where this word occurs in the context of divorce & remarriage, as I point out in my books. Jeremiah is talking about God's divorce from Israel, which he delayed and delayed, forgiving Israel again and again, till God divorced her when it was absolutely clear that she was not going to repent.

Jesus commands us to forgive someone 70x7 times IF they repent (Luke 17.4 - though Matt.18.21f omits "if they repent", probably because it is too obvious). We can also forgive them and give them another chance if they don't repent, but that is an option, not a command. And we cannot repeat that kind of forgiveness endlessly - just like God decided finally that it was counterproductive to continue giving Israel more chances.
For more see Four Biblical Grounds for Divorce in Divorce & Remarriage in the Church

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Temporary Marriages in Islamic theology.

2007-10-25T10:18:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
I read an interesting article about changing mores in Iraq particularly in relations to "temporary marriages", which can last as little as one hour.

Among Sunnis similarly the "temporary marriage" is known as an "Orfi" marriage and among Shi'a it is called a "Mut'ah" marriage. The difference is that while the "temporary marriage" is perfectly accepted and legal among the Shi'ites, the orfi marriage is still embarrassing to established sensibilities.The orfi marriage is also referred to as an "unregistered marriage" because it can take place simply by the contract of the two involved and two witness (usually two friends taken in confidence). If the relationship "runs its course" the contract can be torn up and thus the marriage is for all intents and purposes "annulled." But sometimes, as you can imagine, the male sometimes unilaterally tears up the contract leaving the female with child. The the discussion about some personal experiences and the legal status of orfi marriages here.

Reply: Thank you for pointing out this very interesting aspect of Islamic marriage law.
I looked up the subject of Shi'ite "Temporary Marriage", which I learned about from you, and found an interesting Q & A page about it on Ayatollah Sistani's site. It defines Temporary Marriage as one which has a stated time limit. You can remarry the same woman even the next day after the marriage ends, and that your temporary wife may even be a Christian or a Jew, but your permanant wife must be a Shi'ite Muslim. See also the summary here.

This appears to be very similar to the practice which Moses might be condemning in Deut.24.1-4 - where the practice of marrying, divorcing and remarrying the same woman is condemned.

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

If a marriage can actually end, what does 'one flesh' mean?

2007-10-25T09:59:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
I understand from your study that the divorce certificate actualy ends any marriage, whether it is legitimate or not, and one is then free to remmary (though not in the proper biblical order if it is illegitimate) which means also that they are not one flesh anymore. So my question is, how should we understand "they are one flesh" they are not two anymore but one.

Reply: There are two main views of how to understand "one flesh":
1) two people become permanently one person through a sexual act - if this is so, then we would have to say that no divorce is possible unless one half of that one new person-pair dies.
2) two people are joined in a special way through a sexual act - if this is so, then that joining CAN come to an end, though it should not.

Jesus appears to hold the second view, because he says that the joining CAN be broken but it is sinful to cause that breakup.

Jesus says "no one SHOULD separate" those whom God has joined - ie it is wrong, sinful, to cause the breakup of a marriage. The Greek has the imperative mood - ie a command or a longing or a wish. I take it as a command. However, you can't translate it as "no one CAN separate". The fact that Jesus commands people not to cause the breakup of a marriage (ie not to break their marriage vows) implies that it sinful but it is possible.

Paul also appears to hold the second view, because he says you can become "one flesh" with more than one person.

Paul says that if you go with a prostitute you become "one-flesh" (1Cor.6.16). He does not say that it only happens with the first person you have sex with - otherwise it would be OK for a married person to go to a prostitute because they wouldn't become "one flesh" with them. According to the context, he is saying that sex is very special and it involves a spiritual bonding, just as "he who is joined to the Lord becomes one flesh with him" (v.17), so we should not take sex lightly because our bodies are a temple of God (v.19).

Therefore I take "one flesh" to mean a special spiritual relationship which comes about through sex and which should not be broken if it has been sanctified by God in marriage. However, marriages can break up due to the sinful breaking of marriage vows. This SHOULD never happen, but sadly it does.
For more see Till Death Us Do Part? in Divorce & Remarriage in the Church

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Tomson, unlike most reviewers, is quite critical.

2007-10-25T09:50:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
Have you seen Tomson's review of your work? Unlike most reviewers, he is quite critical, and appears to have some serieious criticisms.

Reply: Tomson's review has some very telling points (as well as pointing out some spelling mistakes).

His review points up a couple of important areas where I have been unclear. I wish I had spent more time dealing with Westbrook, whom I no longer think has the correct solution to Dt.24.1-4 – see here). And I wish I had dealt with the origin of the Any Cause divorce - the Hillelites clearly didn't invent it cos it was used in 5th C BCE Elephantine, but they invented the Scriptural justification for it (see here).

I don't agree with his reading of the Qumran material, which seems to be a merging of the old view (that the phrase 'two wives in their lifetime' referred to remarriage) and the newer view (which might even be called a consensus) that it refered to polygamy.

I don't think that I failed to justify my use of Matthew's additions to the divorce tradition, as he suggests. I argued that Matthew was writing some time after Mark when the Hillelite-Shammaite debate was no longer current, so he had to remind his readers about it.

I am flattered that such a fine scholar has clearly read my work very carefully.
On "two wives" at Qumran see Ginzberg's Explanation of "during their lives" in Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible
On Matthew's additional phrases see The Exceptions in Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Does the "abomination" of remarriage in Deut.24.4 show that marriage is indissoluble?

2007-10-25T09:39:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
The passage at Deuteronomy 24.4 still troubles me.

"Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."

I read John Piper's position paper on divorce and remarriage (he believes in indissolvable union) and he says uses this verse as a proof text that marriage is indissolvable because it says she's defiled for being married to another man. Have you heard this comment before, and how would you respond to it?

Reply: Dt.24.1-4 is still a mystery to all scholars. It appears to say that it is OK to divorce and to remarry, but not to then divorce again and remarry one's original husband. Why should it be OK to marry a third husband but an abomination to remarry one's original husband?

The best published solution is probably that of Westbrook, as I mention in my academic book. However, I don't think Westbrook took sufficient note of the number of times "hate" is used for perfectly proper divorces, from Neo-Babylonian divorces to those at Elephantine (where they used this exact Biblical vocabulary).

The solution which makes the most sense is that the man is acting as a pimp by 'marrying' his wife to a another man for the night. In the morning the other man 'divorces' her and they carry on with their marriage till the next client comes along.

This is how prostitution works in some Muslim societies, where the client simply has to say "I divorce you" three times in the morning and his 'marriage' is over. This would explain why this 'remarriage' to the same man would be so abominable.

What Dt.24.1 does NOT say is that divorce followed by remarriage is wrong. THe only thing it specifically condemns is the woman who leaves her second husband and goes back to her first - which is the opposite to what it would say if a marriage union was indissoluble.
For Westbrook's theory see Payment and penalties in marriage covenants in Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Which church confession are you defending?

2007-10-25T09:24:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
Before I go out and buy your book, I was wondering if you could please explain to me what view you hold to. Is it the view that upholds to the Westminster Confession? That is, remarriage is allowed even when the spouse still remains alive.

Or is it the view that believes that all remarriage is an act of adultery? Of course, not including remarriage after an unlawfully/in-sensuous marriage. That is, if a husband or wife divorces their spouse and remarries another while he or she is still alive, this would constitutes the act of adultery. This is the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Reply: If you are looking for something which simply supports what a particular church has always taught, you will be disappointed.
I am attempting to read the NT through the eyes of people living in NT times – ie people who spoke every day using the same phrases which Jesus used and which we sometimes find confusing. Their understanding of Jesus' message would have been differently to that of virtually all modern churches. The surprising thing is that their understanding of the text is much more coherent and pastorally sensitive than ours today.
For more see What Should the Church Do Now? in Divorce & Remarriage in the Church

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

I cannot see that Moses would allow divorce if it were a 'sin'.

2007-10-25T09:13:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
I am presently working on a paper and my professor listed your book, " Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible" as one of his "suggested reading" materials. I choose to do it for a class presentation this week...and I have a question.

Almost without exception, Christians believe that divorce is a "sin." In every discussion, teaching, sermon, it is referred to as such. A few weeks ago, in a class discussion, several students called it a "sin" that one must repent of but that can be forgiven. They also refered to it as the "lesser of two evils", when having to choose between slavery, or prostitution et. I wanted to do a report on your book because I believe it shows the true Biblical view. Dr. Brad Young in his book, "Jesus the Jewish Theologian," says, 'Divorce is not adultery (a sin). Remarriage after a divorce is not adultery (a sin). However, divorce can be employed to committ adultery (a sin.)" P.116 I cannot see that Moses would allow divorce if it were a "sin."

So my question is, of course, do you think it is Biblically correct for Christians to continue to place divorce in the catagory of a "sin"...I would appreciate your insight on this.

Reply: I can't regard all divorces as sinful, because the OT prophets describe God as a divorcee - He separated from Judah but divorced Israel. The sin in divorce is the breaking of marriage vows. Israel broke all her marriage vows and God, after trying many times to get her to repent, was forced to divorce her.

When Jesus said that remarriage was sinful, he was speaking in the context of a debate about the new divorce for 'Any Cause', which he regarded as non-Scriptural and therefore invalid. Unfortunately it was so common that virtually all divorces in his day were based on this new Hillelite law, so that anyone who got a divorce on this ground was not properly divorced (according to Jesus). In this case, if they remarried, they were committing adultery, because they were still married to their former partner.
Divorce always involves sin because it either occurs as the result of repeatedly broken marriage vows (which are sinful) or occurs without broken marriage vows (so that the divorce itself is sinful).

I hope you get an A !
For more see God the Reluctant Divorcee in Divorce & Remarriage in the Church

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

You said that the Hillites invented the Any Cause divorce, but isn't it much older?

2007-10-25T09:10:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
On p.44 of the pastoral book you say that the Deut 24:1 “groundless divorce for ‘men-only’ did not become available until about the time of Jesus’ birth.” From what I read in Archer (219), it seems that men had this right for some time. She wrote:

In the first century the Shammaites attempted to restrict the man's power of divorce to charges of adultery, but such was the strength of the ancient view that the normally more progressive school of Hillel came out in opposition and declared that:[He may divorce her] even if she spoiled a dish for him, for it is written, 'Because he has found in her indecency in ANYTHING' (Deut. 24.1) (Gitt. 9.10). and R. Akiba (fl. c. 110-135 CE) lent his authority to the argument by adding: Even if he found another fairer than her, for it is written, 'And it shall be if she finds no favour in his eyes , , , ' (Deut. 24.1) (ibid.).It is apparent from Philo (Spec. Leg. 3.30), Josephus (Ant. 4.253), and other writers of our period that the reality was that of Akiba and the Hillelites. Society in the main would not brook a diminishment of the husband's power, and the general feeling, simply expressed by Ben Sira, was: If she go not as thou wouldst have her Cut her off from thy flesh (25.26).

So did you mean “groundless divorce for ‘men-only’” where they did not have to pay divorce money in a Hillelite court? Hence your other comments about why first century men would want to be sure which court they picked when they wanted to divorce (your “Jesus’ Old Testament Basis for Monogamy” 91).

Reply: Ben Sira certainly shows that groundless divorce existed before the Hillelites, and the Elephantine documents suggest it went back to at least the 5th C - for both men and women. What changed with the Hillelites was that it gained credence as a biblical ground for divorce because they found a way to derive it from Dt.24.1. By basing it in this verse, it became available for only men, because the case law in Dt.24.1-4 concerns a man who divorces his wife. Therefore they ask "Is it lawful for a MAN to divorce his WIFE for 'Any Cause'. Actually, they prob didn't say "for 'Any Cause'" - I think this was added by Matt. It would have been superfluous because the question was 'in the air' like "is it lawful to detain suspected terrorists" - anyone in the USA at present would mentally add "... indefinitely without charge", because of course it is lawful to detain someone suspected of a crime.

The Hillelites do not claim that this exegesis originated with Hillel (who was around perhaps the mid 1st C BCE) and they are debating it with Shammaites (who disappeared at 70CE) so the time period is the first half of the 1st C. Josephus and Philo already regard it as a fixed idea, though their Greek version of 'Any Cause' is different from each other and from Mark, so there was no standard translation. The rabbinic debate was already over and dead by 70CE because no-one appears to be bothered to use the term 'Any Cause' after 70 - it was just 'divorce' - ie it was already the only form of divorce in use in Judaism. By the 3rd C, the rabbis had forgotten so much that they misunderstood what the Shammaite slogan meant.

So, all in all, I'd say this arose very early in the 1st C.

For more see Intertestamental Period in Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Isn't Jesus revoking Moses' permission for divorce?

2007-10-25T08:58:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
Are you arguing, that Jesus did not overturn Deut 24:1 but merely interpreted the ervath davar in Shammaite fashion (the exception clause in Matthew being a clear allusion to the grounds for divorce given in Deut 24:1)? If so, then Jesus did not use the creation texts to overrule Moses, but merely used them to invalidate an improper "for any reason" interpretation of Deut 24:1.

If I understand you correctly (and I'm not sure that I do), then this reading is problematic, it seems to me, even for Matt 19. Even Matthew's version--Mark's version is, of course, more emphatic--infers that Jesus is revoking a permission to divorce given by "Moses": "Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." So if Jesus understood Deut 24:1 as permitting divorce only on the grounds of adultery (a la the Shammaites) and Jesus viewed the creation texts as overruling this Mosaic permission, then Jesus could not have permitted divorce on the grounds of adultery. But Matthew clearly does permit it on the grounds of adultery in his exception clause.

Therefore Jesus (in Matthew's view) could not have subscribed to the Shammaite interpretation of Deut 24:1 but must have subscribed to the Hillelite interpretation: Moses did not command you to divorce for any reason but allowed you to divorce for any reason. The Hillelite interpretation of Deut 24:1 is correct; the Shammaite interpretation is wrong. Nevertheless, says Jesus in Matthew 19, the creation texts, "from the beginning," overrules this Mosaic permission--except (Matthew says) in cases of adultery. So Jesus (in Matthew's version) ends up with a position similar to that of the Shammaites but gets there not by strictly interpreting Deut 24:1 but rather by overruling Deut 24:1 through an appeal to creation texts.

This view too has its problems since the exception clause in Matt 5:32 clearly reproduces in Greek the Shammaite understanding of ervath davar as davar ervath. Clearly Matthew is thinking of the grounds for divorce given in Deut 24:1. And yet he appears to be saying that Moses in Deut 24:1 did not restrict the meaning of ervath davar to sexual immorality (adultery).

Reply: Hmm - I think I understand what you are saying. You appear to be saying that Matthew 19 records Jesus alluding to Shammai to show that Hillel is wrong and then, by his own special reasoning, Jesus comes to a conclusion which kind of agrees with Hillel; but Mt.5 still alludes to Shammai as though Jesus is agreeing with him.

The special reasoning of Jesus (as I understand you) depends on the phrase "Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" which was Jesus' response to their question "Why did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce?" Jesus' answer meant (according to your reading) "Moses did not commanded divorce for 'Any Cause', but only allowed it, and anyway, the creation narrative overrules Moses permission".

This is a clever point, but I have difficulty with it - partly because Mt.19 & Mt.5 appear to disagree with each other (though this might be cleared up) and mainly because this leaves Matthew responsible for adding "except for porneia", and we are back with Mark's question as the original, ie "Is it lawful to divorce your wife?"
My problem with Mark's question is that it is meaningless - divorce is in the law, so of course it is lawful. I agree that Mark's version was probably the original question, but my contention is that any 1st C reader would have expanded it into Matthew's version by adding "... for 'Any Cause'". Any modern reader would do the same thing with the equally meaningless question, "Is it lawful for a 16-year old to drink?" - only a pedant or a lawyer paid by the word would bother to add "... alcoholic beverages".

Your point relies on a phrase which I haven't dealt with in my book - "but from the beginning it was not so" (Mt.19.8). My understanding of this depends on two considerations. First the "but" is DE not ALLA, so I would not expect to read this as a negation or contradiction or replacement of the phrase which precedes it, but as a comment or (at the most) a contrast with it. Second, the concept which it contrasts with is hardheartedness, as suggested by the word order: "Moses, because of your hardheartedness, allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."

Before I say anything about hardheartedness, I'll agree with your emphasis on the contrast between "command" and "allow" - this is a normal rabbinic pair of distinctions. See, eg, t.Shab.13.13b (Z. 14.12): "One should not cast off on the Great Sea less than three days before the Sabbath. To what do these words apply? When he goes down [to the sea] on a permitted matter. But when he goes down on a commanded matter, even if it is the Sabbath Eve, he is permitted." We do not know the date of the latter part of this tradition, though the beginning is a saying by Shammai (according to Sifré Deut.203). In m.Shebu.3.6 the 'compulsory' laws are defined as those which come from Mt. Sinai (i.e. the Written and Oral Torah of Moses) and the 'optional' ones are those which do not (i.e. the rulings of the rabbis).

This implies that the Pharisees wanted to say that divorcing your wife in Dt.24.1 was a command of Moses, and not an innovation of the Pharisees. What were they talking about? They could not have meant that it was compulsory to divorce your wife for 'Any Cause' - otherwise it would be compulsory to divorce her after the first spoilt meal or first wrinkle. But they did, around this time, start to teach that it was compulsory to divorce your wife for adultery. As I say in my book (p.96) it was not universally compulsory before 70CE, but (what I didn't say in my book) it became universally compulsory soon after - cf b.Hag.9b where Judah b. Lakish [T2, just after 70CE] assumes that a cuckolded husband is forbidden to his wife. In other words, most Pharisees already believed that divorcing an adulterous wife was compulsory, but they could not enforce this before 70CE. (It is also possible that the Pharisees meant that it was compulsory to divorce a wife who is not submissive in all things -cf Ben Sira- but this is less likely.)

Jesus had just said that "those whom God has joined, no man SHOULD separate" (Mt.19.6) so they were replying: 'No, this can't be correct, because Moses gives us a situation when one SHOULD separate, indeed MUST separate because it is a command from Moses'. Jesus replied: 'No, Moses only ALLOWED you to divorce'. It is difficult to know whether Jesus is merely saying, 'Moses made the divorce optional, not compulsory' or whether he is also saying 'you have made a rabbinic rule out of the words of Moses' (based on the rabbinic understanding of the contrast between 'command' and 'allow'). Probably this latter nuance is reading too much into the text, but Jesus might have been making a extra side-swipe which the Pharisees alone would understand. THe main meaning is, however, that Moses ALLOWED divorce in the circumstance where the Pharisees taught that Moses COMMANDED it - ie when the wife committed adultery.

Now we can see why Jesus added the word "hardheartedness" at this point. As I pointed out in my book (p.141ff) this would have been recognised as an allusion to Jer.4.4 - the only place where this LXX word (it is created for the LXX, and does not occur in normal Greek) occurs in the context of divorce. This is, of course, where Israel is finally divorced for her hardheartedness after repeated adultery following repeated pleas and warnings by God. God allowed Israel lots of chances to repent, and did not divorce her immediately, as rabbinic law COMMANDED, and only when there was no way forward he took the route which was ALLOWED to men, to divorce her for adultery. My guess is that Jesus expounded this point, but Mark (or the creator of his oral text) had the hard job of abbreviating this into a couple of words. By the way, you will have noticed that Mark gets "command" and permit" mixed up (Mk.10.3) and Mt had to untangle it - successfully, I think.

So when Jesus says (in Mt) "but from the beginning it was not so", it is a wistful reminder that God did not want any divorce any more than he wanted any sin, but both are a painful reality. I can't see that Jesus is trying to reverse the law of Moses by an appeal to the creation order, especially after alluding to the divorce of God in the Prophets.

Anyway, that is the way I read the text, and I'm sorry that I didn't deal with it in the book.

For more see Rabbinic Teaching on Divorce in Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

How long do you keep forgiving a violent partner?

2007-10-25T05:31:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
Thank you for your compelling book on divorce and remarriage in the church. I have devoured it over the last three days in between work. My husband and I have long held the view that if somebody continuously and unrepentantly breaks their wedding vows the innocent party should be released from the marriage. So it was very helpful for us to see the biblical foundation for our belief system. Even more exciting was reading your views on obey. We have also believed for a long time in egalitarian marriage and mutual submission and I think your position about both partners agreeing to obey is sound - if it must be said at all - but I prefer the idea of a commitment to mutual submission.

I have a question and a suggestion - not an original suggestion but one that really opened my eyes when I read it but first the question.

What I omitted earlier is that my husband and I have been senior ministers in the past and are just about to start a new work. In the mean time we have continued to minister to a lot of disenfranchised people and those who have maintained a pastoral or "mentoring" relationship with us. I am personally "mentoring" four women in difficult relationships and my question is one about forgiving the offending partner when they "repent". How long do you keep forgiving? And what happens when you forgive and the abuse escalates?

I dont know quite how to deal with this because it seems to require judging the sincerity of the offender's "repentance" (I say that advisedly as more often than not it seems to be remorse - and I say that as the offender rarely does more than say they are sorry, act like the perfect partner for a few weeks and slowly slide into the abusive behaviour again, taking it that bit further each time). I do feel that fruits of a persons life tends to be their judge in any case and being a continuous abuser does suggest a lot about their sincerity.

It seems easier to help a woman draw the line if she or her children are in physical danger - it is much easier to counsel - on the basis of safety and the fact that the offender is also breaking the law - for the woman to remove herself and insist on the offender getting serious help and intervention and if they wont/dont change the innocent party can divorce. But when it is an escalation of nastiness and mean spiritedness or not doing the right things financially it is much harder to help them draw the line.

Most of the women I am ministering too would struggle at the best of times - based on the heritage of beliefs from being "churched" into believing divorce is not allowable for Christians to draw the line and say enough is enough. When their partner is seeking constant "forgiveness" it makes it even harder for them to say no you have done this too many times.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this - do I just leave them to it or do I help them to draw a line?

Along the lines of helping people to draw the line in neglectful and abusive marriages, I have come to the conclusion that we should apply Matthew 18:15-17 albeit most churches may struggle on the basis of the views they hold of a womans place in marriage to hear the woman and deal with an aberrant husband.

Nevertheless I think the idea of a woman first confronting the husband, seeing what happens and if there is no change then taking witnesses with her to deal with him and if there is still no change taking it to the church. If there is still no change then I believe a woman has done all she can do and is free to leave. The bible gives this as instructions for resolving grievances between brothers and sisters in Christ and I think it should apply to husbands and wives as well.

As I said this is not an original idea I read it in a book called Men and Women in Church by Dr Sarah Sumner, PhD (chapter 16, pages 191- 206, publisher InterVarsity Press, published in 2003) although she wasnt applying it to divorce but to solving issues with a marriage partner. I think people need to have a process and to know that it is biblically backed. I guess the only difficulty here is how does it sit with forgiving your brother 70 times 7 if he sins against you?

I do think you give some clues when you discuss an offending partner wanting to remarry. Your advice seems to be for the offender to seek forgiveness from the partner they have hurt and if the innocent party is willing, reconcile. Inherent in this advice it seems that the innocent party can choose whether to reconcile and that it is okay for them to say no. Would it be fair to say that the innocent party must forgive the offender but that they can still choose not to go back into a relationship with that person? In other words you can forgive the offender but you might still uphold the consequence of their behaviour.

Reply: Thank you for your encouragement and for a most interesting question, to which you have evidently given much more thought than I have. It sounds like you are nearer the front line, so to speak, and you have a very clear insight into the problems involved.

The only guidelines which I have found in the Bible are the example of God divorcing Israel and Jesus' teaching on 70x7 (which you mention).

I like the distinction which you make between 'repentance' and 'remorse' and I suspect the solution lies in discerning the difference between the two. Repentance includes a change in behaviour as well as contrite apology, though sometimes someone who sincerely repented falls again into the same sin - and although God can no-doubt tell if the original repentance was genuine, it is often difficult for us.

How does the 7x70 work? If the suffering for us is minor, we can go on forgiving, but how many times can you continue to accept physical harm? To take it to the extreme, how many times do you let someone get drunk and shoot at you and miss? I think I'd say that you forgive him if he repents, but if he gets into a drunken temper again, you don't hang around to see if he picks up his gun. And if the repeated offence is adultery, who can expect a marriage to survive 490 mistresses!
So the answer isn't in numbers, but in attitude. Sin does repeat, and forgiveness has to be given more than once, and if you are convinced that someone is really trying, and you can stand it, Jesus tells us to keep on forgiving. But in the end those offenses will kill the marriage, and the only person who knows when the end has come is the injured party. Ezekiel listed the marriage vows which Israel had broken (unfaithfulness, giving God's food to idols, clothing them with the expensive cloth which God gave Israel, and giving her love to them) but Ezekiel didn't start counting them the number of times Israel broke them. God warned and forgave many times in the prophets, and finally he ended the marriage, and the only clue we have about the timing of this is the word 'hardhearted' which Jesus cites.

Jesus cites the word 'hardhearted' from Jer.4.4. We know he is quoting the OT because 'hardhearted' is a word which only occurs in the Bible - it doesn't occur any where else in Greek literature because it was invented by the team which translated the Hebrew Bible into the Greek Septuagint version (ie the 'LXX') about 200BC.

This was the Bible used by Greek-speaking synagogues, so when Jesus' words were translated into Greek, they used the Greek version of the Bible for his OT quotes. The word 'hardhearted' occurs many times in the LXX, but only once in the context of divorce or marriage, which is at Jer.4.4

The LXX of Jer.4.4 reads: "Circumcise yourselves to your God and circumcise your hardness of heart, you men of Judah". In the Hebrew OT this is: "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD and remove the foreskin of your heart you men of Judah". The translators decided that "foreskin of your heart" should be interpreted as "your hardness of heart" - ie 'stubbornness' or 'obstinancy'. This is a good interpretation of the phrase in the context in which it occurs. Jeremiah is giving Judah God's final warning, that if they don't repent they will be exiled like Israel was, which ultimately resulted in God divorcing Israel (as Jeremiah pointed out in chap.2-3).

The language at the start of Jer.4 is particularly interesting with regard to the practical problems which you are coming up against, because we can see how God presents to them their 'last chance'. Jer.1.1: "If you will return O Israel, says the LORD, return to me [ie repent]. And if you will remove your hateful-idols from my face {remove them} and do not waver."- ie if you are going to repent, then do so, and if you are going to leave your lovers, do so, and don't keep going back.

Of course they didn't, and God sent Israel into Exile, and now Jeremiah warns Judah not to follow the same path, so he says:v3: For the LORD speaks thus to the man of Judah and to Jerusalem: "Break up your fallow ground and do not sow to the thorns. Circumcise yourselves to the LORD and remove the foreskin of your heart"

The imagery of this needs some unpacking for us modern-day townies. First he uses agricultural imagery to say that they are throwing seeds on top on thorns, and that they should plough up the field first, to kill the thorns and get the soil prepared. What is he talking about? - their hearts. He says their hearts need to be prepared - break up the hard ground in their hearts and get rid of the thorns in their heart so that the seed will grow.

The other imagery here is that of a covenant or contract. In v.1 they make a new contract with God - and they are told that if they promise something they must also DO it. In v.3 the contract is compared to the contract which each Jew has with God, as symbolised by their circumcision. God says through Jeremiah that this circumcision isn't complete if it doesn't include their heart.

The last bit of imagery which is difficult for us modern readers to appreciate is the 'heart' which was not the seat of the emotions in the ancient world, but the seat of the intellect.

So, what is Jeremiah saying? "If you are repenting, you must turn around, plough up your stubborn minds and not waver". Or, to use modern imagery: "If you are repenting, you need to do a U turn, get your mind into gear and stick on that route" - otherwise it isn't real repentance.

In other words, in the area of broken marriage vows there is a clear way to see whether someone is repentant or just remorseful - by seeing what they DO. If they say they have repented of their adultery or abuse and they go back to it, then it is fairly certain that this wasn't repentance. Remember, forgiveness, as Luke 17.3-4 says, should be contingent on repentance. You can forgive someone in your heart, to prevent bitterness from taking over your life, but without their repentance you cannot extend that forgiveness to the person themselves (ie let them off the consequences of their offence), because otherwise evil will triumph.

For more see God the Reluctant Divorcee in Divorce & Remarriage in the Church

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Isn't the Greek 'douluo' ('free from slavery') a strange word to use?

2007-10-23T02:48:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
Is the word 'douloo' (the word used in 1 Cor. 7:15 = 'under bondage') ever used in the literature of the day in reference to the marriage bond, or to indicate freedom from the marriage bond? I hold the same view that you do, namely that this verse does grant freedom to remarry. But one gentleman who is giving me feedback at present, who does not believe this, has said that he might be convinced this verse does give freedom to remarry if it could be shown that dedoulotai is used in reference to the marriage bond in other literature of the time.

Reply: Your friend is right - douloo seems very strange to us when it is used in this context, because it implies bondage to slavery. However it is no less strange to our minds that the use of eleutheros ('freedom') being used used in a marriage context in (in 1Cor.7.39; Rom.7.3), because this word means 'freedom from slavery'. The reason is, I think, that Paul is alluding to the context of Ex.21.10f, where the standard grounds for divorce are based on the rights of the least important married person in society - ie a wife who is a former slave. For details see the end of the article here.
www.DivorceRemarriage.com

How do you defend yourself from an increasingly violent wife?

2007-10-22T12:12:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed this real-life story:

DEATH SENTENCE

I knew in my heart that the violence would eventually become physical – I just didn’t know when. Each verbal assault got more intense than the last and the insults, threats, and accusations became increasingly hurtful. Her tirades were now up to several hours each. At the same time, it was taking less time for her angry voice to start ringing in my head like a migraine. There was no reasoning with her, and no option to hit the pause button so we could talk about it later. I would ask her if we could continue the “discussion” when emotions were not so high, but this request was always denied, and often met with an additional threat. At first, I tried to stand my ground by deflecting verbal punches. When I realized this was futile, or that it just fueled her anger, I did my best to sit still and wait for the storm to pass. People always say that emotional pain is the worst pain of all. I always believed that, until the hatefulness of her words cut so deeply that I found myself clutching at my heart. The emotional pain was so intense that it became physically unbearable at times.

The kind, loving woman I married would surface briefly between blowouts. When she hadn't taken offense to something I had done, or something she was convinced I was thinking, she was a wonderful person who was always very sorry for her words. Her anger was rooted in a horribly abusive childhood. This made it easier to have compassion on her, but it didn't lessen the pain of her hatred toward me – a hatred that could dissipate as quickly as it could flare up.

The latest incident could fade from her mind in a matter of minutes. She would expect me to get over it just as quickly, but before I could recover from the last assault (as long as several days and as few as several hours), I was again dealing with a brutalized eight-year-old in a 35-year-old body. Even my inability to bounce back as quickly as her could send her into another fit.

I often thought about suggesting counseling, but I knew this idea would have to come from her. For me to insinuate that she needed help was like pouring gasoline on an already-out-of-control fire. She realized that her actions were wrong, but she justified them because of the ways she believed I had hurt her. She was very sensitive because of her own past hurt, so if I did something that was simply inconsiderate, she perceived it as me being horribly abusive.

From my perspective, her reactions were extreme. From her perspective, she "needed" me to feel the same pain she was feeling so I wouldn't hurt her that way again. I was not a perfect husband, but some of the things she accused me of were so absurd that I had to shake my head in astonishment at times.

Even when I was doing everything I could to honor and cherish her, she seemed unable to accept that my love was true. To her, she wasn't abusive. She was just protecting herself from what she perceived was me abusing her. To me, it was a cage that was closing in – a place where it was almost impossible for me to do anything right. A place where even my best attempts to show her love were often taken as me being intentionally hurtful.

I began to prepare myself for her threats to become real. I theorized that if she actually broke my nose like she had talked about, she might realize how deep her problem was and finally seek some counseling.

For this reason, I decided not to resist or even flinch; to “take it on the chin”, like I believed Jesus would. The first physical assault was instigated by me answering a business phone call during one of her attacks. It wasn’t that I took the phone call; it was that I assumed a measure of composure for it. I still haven’t figured out why this upset her. I just know that she glared at me for the entire call. When I hung up, she took her wedding ring off her finger and threw it in my face as hard as she could. As per my resolve, I didn’t even blink. God protected me, and the ring glanced off the side of my nose and bounced off the wall before it hit the ground. She yelled, “You’re a jerk!” as she grabbed a chair and slammed it into my knee. She broke the skin, but again, I didn’t flinch or react. I just looked at her, as I thought (at the time) Jesus would have.

I was hoping that if she became physically violent it would jolt her into realizing that she had a serious problem. Instead, it increased the severity of her accusations as she continued to blame me for her progressively hateful actions. Her ability to twist situations to her favor was truly mind-boggling. She would spend hours railing on me for things she accused me of thinking with next to no awareness of the hurtful things she was actually doing. I knew I was living with the judge and the jury, but it began to occur to me that I might also be living with the executioner.

The violence escalated from slapping, to punching, to biting, kicking, scratching, spitting, and death threats. Eventually, she started swinging anything she could get her hands on. Even a peaceful Bible study could end with a backhanded Bible across my face. I gave up the no-flinch approach, because it was obviously having no effect. I am not a weak person, but I remember crying myself to sleep from the emotional pain, and the fact that I couldn’t close my hands because my forearms were so sore from blocking punches. If I tried to leave the room before things escalated, she would pick up a glass or a candlestick holder and threaten to smash my face in.

I could have forced my way past her, but I would have had to harm her to do that, and it was my resolve to defend myself as passively as possible. Mostly, this was because I saw it as my role to protect her regardless of what she was trying to do to me. In the back of my mind, I also knew that the law would be very much on her side if I ever physically harmed her, even if it was in self-defense. I tried locking myself in the bathroom one time, hoping she would get tired of yelling through the door. But she actually broke through the door and I was forced to defend myself in a very awkward space.

I had made the mistake of buying her an expensive knife set for the kitchen when we got married. A policeman had once told me that a knife is more deadly from 20 feet than a handgun, so I started to mentally prepare myself for what measures I would take if she started swinging one of them.
By now, I had developed a sixth sense of when her verbal abuse was going to become physical toward me. I had also discovered that if I could yell louder than her and "freak out" on myself or the walls of the house, she would actually calm down instead of becoming more violent. It was like it soothed her to have finally uncovered the "true violent me". As a sensitive person who rarely got angry in the past, I hated the craziness of the person I was becoming. Destroying the house or harming myself was still less painful, however, than the alternative of my wife beating on me and threatening to kill me.

I could see that the situation was dangerous and insane, but I couldn't see any other option. I grew up with the Biblical belief that I was stuck in this relationship for life. I had made my bed and now I had to sleep in it . . . even if it meant not waking up one day.

She thought she had discovered my true violent nature, and I was beginning to believe this myself. As a desperate attempt to figure out if my "freaking out" was in violence or preemptive self-defense, I determined to react differently the next time her anger began to escalate. I don’t remember the exact issue, but I do remember it was just a difference of opinion on something that didn't have a right or wrong answer. Instead of my recently developed freak-out response, I kept a calm composure, and politely stood my ground on an issue that, with anyone else, should have been a pleasant exploration of differences. The fact that I was unwilling to agree with her opinion was all it took to put her into a mode of escalating fury. The "discussion" moved into the kitchen, where there was a 12-inch carving knife beside her on the counter. I continued to stay calmly engaged in what, from her perspective, had now become an argument. Although it was difficult to imagine her actually attacking me with a knife, something inside me was telling me to brace myself for the worst. In the middle of a sentence, in a sequence of events that probably took less than a second, the woman I had tried so hard to love was rushing at me in a rage with the knife above her head.

Things happen very slowly when one's life is about to end. Her elbow was bent, and all of a sudden the knife didn't look very long any more, because it was pointed directly at my head. I knew that unless the Lord was with me I was about to feel the blade enter my face or chest.

I don't know what women do if the man is the attacker in these situations. I guess that's why there are thousands of women who are beaten to death every year by their husbands. For whatever reason, God allowed me to protect myself without serious physical harm to either of us. My heart goes out to all the battered spouses who are not as able to protect themselves as I was.

No one had taught me how to deal with a violent spouse. All I knew is that I had made a commitment to cherish and protect my wife. Despite my advantage in size and strength, I did my best to defend myself in a way that would not harm her. My job was to protect her, and biblically I believed I was bound to endure anything she did to me short of being “unfaithful”. I had become accustomed to waking up with her interrogating or yelling at me. I was trusting God that He would protect me if I woke up with a knife to my throat.

The confusion, degradation, and rejection made it increasingly difficult to imagine that it would ever stop. I found myself going for long walks along the highway and struggling not to step in front of the next big truck. I remember talking to a good friend, at a particularly hopeless time, who was able to convince me that I still had a reason to live.

I felt I was stuck in this situation for life unless she committed an act of adultery. But I kept myself from hoping for a sinful resolution to this problem. She had accused me of some of the most horrible sins in the Bible. She would often describe, in detail, other men she wished she had married. She even met with one of these people without telling me. But in all of this, she remained what I thought was biblically “faithful” because she never committed what Jesus called “unchastity” (Matthew 5:32) or “immorality” (Matthew 19:9 - New American Standard translation).

I cried out to God for help, but I was dying from the inside out. My spirit had been crushed so many times that I was losing my will to live. My mind was so confused from the constant accusations that I had begun to believe it really was my fault. My body was suffering the effects of severe depression and I was beginning to look like I was hooked on some horrible drug.

FREEDOM.

By this time, we had spent a significant portion of our savings on professional Christian counseling. She recognized that her violence was wrong and destructive, but she maintained the belief that if I could get my act together, the problem would be solved because she would have no reason to react.

Much to the disapproval of Christian friends and family members who said we were being a "poor witness" by separating, we spent many weeks apart in hopes that the situation would improve when we came back together. Being separated was always a time of safety, but it did nothing to improve the relationship.

Her rampages continued and were provoked by any little thing. This included if I disagreed with an insight she had "received from God" while she was reading her Bible. I could sense the escalation of her tone one day and knew where it was going. I had lost all hope of reasoning with her, and the only thing I could think to do was lay still without moving a muscle. She tried hitting me, but I did not respond. I laid perfectly still for half a day, knowing that even the slightest response could turn the next few days into another nightmare. In that desperate place, I prayed something that I had only prayed one time in my life before. I asked God to "set me free". Within hours, she came into the bedroom and told me I needed to leave.

After three or four months of separation and the rest of our savings spent on counseling for both of us, she told me during one of our phone conversations that her violence was inexcusable, but that I had "abused and victimized" her. I had long lost any feelings for her, but I was still holding on to a very faint hope. I believed that she would one day realize that I was just an imperfect but decent guy who was doing my best to care for her. This last accusation completely deflated any lingering sense of hope that I might ever be able to live with her safely.

At the same time, the extended break from her confusing world had allowed me to reestablish a bearing on what was acceptable in a relationship and what was not. I was renting a room from an old friend of mine. He left me to myself, for the most part, because he realized how badly I was broken. I was always surprised that when we disagreed about something, it never resulted in an argument or a fight. I was rediscovering "normal", and by contrast, I was slowly able to see how messed up the previous two years had actually been.

I knew that if I got together with my wife, there was a good chance that she would kill me or I would kill myself. At the same time she had never, to my knowledge, committed adultery, so divorce was not an option either. I prayed to God and asked Him to show me something, anything, in His Word that would help me know His will in this situation.

I was not looking for a reason to divorce my wife. I believed the Bible clearly stated that this was not an option in my case. I just wanted to be free from what felt like a death sentence. I was virtually bedridden at this time due to the toll on my body from the last two years, so I was very thankful for the ability to search for information on the Internet.
90% of what I found about the issue of abuse was written by Christians who confidently condemned divorce in any situation except adultery. These people would typically state that there are only one or two causes for divorce in the Bible. Some would quote Jesus as saying that adultery is the only cause (Matthew 5:32). Others would also quote Paul as saying that if an unbelieving spouse leaves you, you're no longer bound (1Corinthians 7:15).

I believed that both of these quotes were true, but it seemed strange to me that Paul would give an additional cause for divorce when Jesus seemed to clearly state that there was only one. If adultery was the only exception, was Paul's teaching in contradiction with the teaching of Jesus? "If so," I thought, "this whole thing is a joke and it doesn't really matter what the Bible says about it."

"On the other hand," I thought, "maybe there is an explanation that takes both of these teachings into consideration. Maybe it is only an apparent contradiction that just requires a deeper understanding of the culture or the original text". I asked God to reveal the reason for this apparent contradiction to me. After weeks of searching, I found a small number of more sympathetic websites that seemed closer to the heart of God. Unfortunately, these websites frustrated me just as much because they were unable to adequately support their position with Scripture. I continued to seek God fervently on this issue, but I was unwilling to accept any teaching that was inconsistent with His Word.

By God's grace, a compassionate pastor with a doctorate in ancient literature had begun studying the issue of God's heart for the abused spouse about a decade before I began my search. Dr. David Instone-Brewer, of Tyndale House England, had been compiling 2000-year-old marriage and divorce certificates and information from ancient sources such as the recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls. He had pieced together an undeniably accurate picture of life in the first century and reread the biblical teaching on divorce in the context of first century culture. The result was an understanding that, among other things, resolved the apparent contradictions between the teachings of Jesus and Paul on the issue of divorce and remarriage.

When I found the extensive work of this gentleman, it was like someone had cracked open the window of my prison cell. To say that God used Dr. Instone-Brewer's work to set me free is an understatement. It would be more accurate to say that it may have saved my life. His book has been reviewed by dozens of reliable Christian journals, and has been referred to as "arguably the best biblical study on the question of divorce and remarriage" (Trinity Journal Spring 2003) among other things. He has diligently created different versions of his findings so they can be accessible to everyone from a layperson like myself to an expert in ancient Hebrew. As I read through his work, I began to rediscover a compassionate God whose heart is truly for the oppressed; a God whose "perfect law" includes provision for battered husbands and wives.

My previous belief was so deeply ingrained that it took me another two months of diligent Bible study and prayer to finally accept that there were other grounds for divorce besides adultery. I was fully aware that my circumstance could easily sway my convictions, so I tried to overcompensate by actively attempting to disprove what he was saying. In the process, I found that it was very easy to poke holes in the commonly held "adultery-only" grounds for divorce. In contrast, every question I had about Dr. Instone-Brewer's work had an answer that was consistent with the Bible as well as God's heart for the oppressed. Through his research, I was able to see how the Old Testament grounds for divorce, in the case of abuse or neglect, were consistent with the teachings of both Jesus and Paul. It just took a willingness to understand the specific 1st century legal and cultural issues that Jesus and Paul were addressing.

I'm quite familiar with the feeling of God's discipline in my life. He promises to correct us any time we are out of line (Hebrews 12:7). As I was walking toward the decision to divorce my wife, I prayed many times for Him to discipline me if I was taking a step in the wrong direction. But instead of His discipline, I was experiencing a whole new level of His provision in all areas of my life. Intellectually, emotionally and spiritually, it all lined up. When I finally made the decision to put an end to the madness, it felt like I had just stepped into the sunlight from my cold dark prison cell.

It has been three years since I decided to seek a divorce. Since then, God has blessed me with the return of my health and a deeper intimacy with Him than I have ever had. As a child, I learned that the letter of God's law kills, but the spirit of His law brings life (2 Corinthians 3:6). As an adult I experienced first hand that following the letter of the law (as understood from the New Testament only) literally almost killed me. Understanding the spirit of God’s law about divorce (in the context of the New and Old Testament) has now brought me new life.

In the same passage as Jesus talks about divorce in Matthew 5:31+32, He also says some important things about "the law". This was near the beginning of Jesus' ministry, and long before Paul or any of the apostles wrote the books of the New Testament. In other words, when Jesus spoke about "the law" He was referring to what we now call the Old Testament. In this passage He gave a stern warning to anyone who would add to or subtract from this law. He said that He didn't come to abolish this law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). He said that anyone who changed this law – or, I'm assuming, ignored it – would be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:19). Understanding how the Old Testament law applies to our lives today is not an easy task. The tendency is to "keep it simple" and limit our knowledge of this law to the Ten Commandments. That was my understanding for years, until I realized that the Ten Commandments are only the first of many. The rest of the commandments go on to give us an even clearer picture of what is sin and what is acceptable in God's eyes. Dr. Instone-Brewer has taken this complex body of information and presented it in a way that anyone can understand. He has made it available for free on the internet, and he has included condensed summaries so a person can read the basics in as little as five minutes. He has shown how Jesus and Paul's teachings in the New Testament are consistent with this Old Testament law, and therefore consistent with each other.

Dr. Instone-Brewer's work offers a biblical understanding of God's heart for the abused or neglected spouse. At the very least, his work casts enough doubt on the traditional view that we must revert to God's character on this issue rather than stand firm on a contradictory teaching. At best, Dr. Instone-Brewer has finally pieced together a puzzle that for centuries has left many pieces (and people) without a proper fit.

Jesus said that God will judge us in the same way we judge others (Matthew 7:2). I am concerned for anyone who would judge those who are divorced or considering this option. These people confidently place lifelong restrictions on other people's lives by telling them that God allows divorce for adultery, but never for life-threatening physical abuse. As concerned as I am for the people who judge, however, I am far more concerned for so many battered spouses. These people need to know that God's love for them is more than warm feelings of consolation. They need to know that He has also provided them with a means for their safety, freedom and joy.

“O LORD, You have heard the desire of the humble; You will strengthen their heart, You will incline Your ear to vindicate the orphan and the oppressed, so that man who is of the earth will no longer cause terror.” (Psalms 10:17+18)

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

John Piper corrects misconceptions about my Christianity Today article

2007-10-21T12:55:00.000-07:00

John Piper has written a gracious and well-argued response to my article in Christianity Today. He criticizes my conclusions and outlines his own, non-traditional, interpretation of the texts, which I will respond to below. He also says that the article has been misunderstood by many readers, pointing out that it is easy to jump to the wrong conclusions if you read the article, without having read my books (which he knows well).

Many readers have misunderstood the article to say that divorce is allowed for any breaking of marriage vows by emotional or physical neglect. But what my research demonstrates is that both Jesus and Paul criticized no-fault divorce and taught that we should forgive the faults of our marriage partners. Jesus did, however, allow divorce if the marriage vows were broken with ‘hardness of heart’ – an Old Testament word meaning continuing, or stubborn, unrepentance. This means, in effect, that divorce is allowed for adultery, abandonment or abuse. I am glad to have the opportunity to put this important distinction across.

John Piper’s own interpretation of the divorce passages is based on the view that porneia (Greek for ‘sexual indecency’) had a different meaning in first century Judaism, when it referred mainly to ‘fornication’ (ie sexual sin before marriage). This theory was stated first by E.G.Selwyn and expanded by the Qumran scholar Abel Isaksson. It is similar to the well-established theory of the French scholar Bonsirven which was was popularised a few decades ago by the Catholic scholar Murphy O’Connor, who found supporting evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This interpretation is important for Catholic scholars because it means that Jesus did not allow any divorce after marriage has occurred – the same teaching that Piper supports.

This evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls was based on only one passage, a particularly difficult one, in the Damascus Document, which relies on the translation of the word zenut (the Hebrew equivalent of porneia) as "sex before marriage". Since O’Connor put forward this theory, however, other scrolls have been studied (especially the Temple Scroll) and most scholars have concluded that the early interpretations of this passage were mistaken, and that it was actually forbidding polygamy.

I deal with these scholars and their theories briefly in chap.10 of Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible

This does not mean that John Piper’s non-traditional interpretation of porneia is wrong - it is scholarly theory waiting for more evidence. Most New Testament scholars agree that ‘porneia’ is a general term for sexual sin, as seen in the New Testament itself. It is used for visiting a prostitute (1 Cor.6.13-15, 18), incest (1 Cor.5.1), general sexual sin by a married person (1 Cor.7.2), use of cultic prostitutes (Rev.2.20-21) and the sin of the ‘whore of Babylon’ (Rev.17.2, 4; 18.3; 19.2) - though the most common meaning is ‘sexual sin in general’ (eg Acts 15.20; Eph.5.3; Col.3.5).

It is a pity that I wasn’t clearer when I summarised my book in the CT article, but that is the danger of trying to say a great deal in few words. I’d like to thank John Piper for helping to set aside some of the misconceptions which resulted.

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

My wife has been in a coma for many months and may never recover. Does this force me to live a celibate life?

2007-10-17T12:45:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
Your book on remarriage and divorce should be required reading in all seminaries and no pastor should ever be allowed to counsel without first reading it. Perhaps you can help me.

I am a 45 yr male studying for the ministry and I am struggling with a very serious moral and spiritual dilemma.

My wife has been in a coma-like state for 9 months and is seriously brain injured.
It is a long time to lie awake at night thinking. I am struggling with my future desire to again find the love of a woman and share in a loving relationship.

Help me to understand how I am to reconcile the need to be loved and find a help-meet and partner with my commitment to my wife. I do not ever want to divorce her. I will not divorce her... but how can I live Scripturally correct in my desire to know again the love of a woman?

Paul [not his real name]

Reply: [I didn't know how to answer this so, with Paul's permission, I emailed the people who have asked to be kept informed on Divorce & Remarriage. The following were some of their replies. I think they represent a significant set of responses to the ageless problem of suffering and the fallenness of this world. Some are blunt, some are sensitive and some are insightful. All are interesting. I start with my favourite: someone who said he didn't know any answers but gave a very practical response - he promised to pray! I'm sure that many of us have been impelled to pray for Paul and for others in such difficult situations.]

All I can say is that I will pray for you and him. I don't have an answer either, other than God always does what is right and will give the strength (& grace) to sustain him until in 20/20 hindsight he can look back acknowledging how God's sovereignty has been at work in and through him.

========================================

As unschooled as I am in theological issues, I have a simple answer for this man. How is his situation any different than the person who has a physical handicap, but still has desires just as strongly as anyone else. We all know people who are in that very situation. The answer for that man is the same as it is for them - they must yeild to God's sovereign will for their lives (their "lot" as Elizabeth Elliot speaks of), and look to Him for the ability to be content in their situation. He has to be the one to meet their needs and desires. Although it's not an easy thing, he has an opportunity to draw closer to the Lord as a result - more so than one who is relying on the companionship of a wife to satisfy his desire for intimacy.

=============================

If I were counseling with my brother here, I would tell him that God has him in a place of spiritual challenge, where he is going to have to die to self and to his flesh, until and unless the physical expression of his love is able to be experienced again with his wife, or until God would mercifully take her home, leaving our brother free to remarry. I think we have to remember that the God given desire for sexual intimacy is restricted to the bounds of marriage by a wise and loving Father. There are times in a persons life when circumstances cause us to set aside sexual intimacy in marriage. A soldier who is away from his wife on active duty for an extended period of time is called upon by God to restrain his desires. A woman whose husband is paralyzed from the neck down is called by God to be a celibate wife and to die to self in that area.

While the gift of sex is a source of joy and physical pleasure, God intends for it to be an expression of our love for one another, and our focus is to be on how we can show love to another person, not on how we can receive love from another person. In this case, I would suggest that it is not an unfair application of the promise of God to be a Husband to the husbandless and a Father to the fatherless to suggest that the love of a woman that our brother seeks here should be a desire that fuels his intimacy with God.

It's always a challenge to give this kind of counsel to a brother when we aren't being called to walk in his shoes and to die to self in the same area. But I can't see any other biblical answer to this. I think of Hosea when Gomer was gone. God did not free him to find the love of a woman elsewhere. In fact, it would have violated what God was intending to picture here - the kind of faithful, covenant keeping love that Christ has for His bride, even when we are unfaithful or spiritually unresponsive.

====================================

The primary question, from the medical perspective of a Christian doctor, is: "is she alive or dead?". Medicallly, we declare brain death if certain conditions are met: flat EEG, lack of brain stem reflexes when the body is at a normal temperature and drug toxicolgy is negative for sedative narcotics or benzodiazepenes. When a patient is in this condition, there is NO hope for recovery and life support is allowed to be removed if the family so chooses. Medically and ethically, I believe that life support at this point prolongs the death process rather than supports the life that God has granted us. Harvesting organs for transplants are legal at this point. Death was alot simpler before machines.

Unfortunately, there are states in between: chronic vegetative state in which the patient may not have a "full life" but may be still be partially aware of his/her environment even though s/he may not be able to communicate fully. S/he might even need a feeding tube because of inability to use the needed muscles. This person needs all the love that family may provide.What does "in sickness and in death" mean to us? In chronic vegetative states, the patients can frequently make their needs and emotions known ... especially to those who spend significant time being their care-takers. She might answer his dilemma for him in time, encouranging him to move on. But I have seen instances in which after taking care of a loved one for months/years, the care-taking spouse is not willing to leave and the vegetative patient is more than joyful at his/her choice. If she is truly comatose, she will not live long if she is only being given "comfort care". The body cannot survive long without the regulators of the brain.

I believe this man is worrying too much about his future (Matt 6:25). This is one question that I believe the Spirit will reveal and empower as the need arises. "Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet" (not a lighthouse that lets us see too far, but a lamp to lead to the next step). There are no easy answers.

=================================

This period may be orchestrated by God to test and try his faith ,,,, I personally know of a Professor at my last college whose wife went into a diabetic coma and has been prayed out of that coma on more than one occasion.

The issue here is the vows to uphold in sickness and in health,,, richer and poorer etc. the only case he has in scripture is the case of exodus 20 and the bondslave who takes a wife, and must not deny food clothing and marital relations.

What i would suggest for this man to do is this,,i would commit to a season of prayer, and seeking god healing or will concerning his wife's condition

A season such as a year, pray and fast,, and ask others to pray,, seek god and then only then after a year or a pre agreedupon season approach this question again and base the question upon his wifes condition and circumstances and her possibility of recovery,,, 9 months is entirley too short,,,,the honorable , the noble, the right thing to do is to wait a season and pray hard for her recovery..... and then reconsider the question in light of his wifes medical condition,,, but regardless of his wifes condition,,,, the honorable thing is to remain with her..for a long enough season and until circumstances are such as no hope or possibility of recovery exists

===============================

It may be a bit presumptuous but I think some of following passages from Paul might be worht thinking about.

2 Cor 11:29 "Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn? (NIV)

1 Cor 7:1-9 (same verb used in verse 9 as in the verse above). In this passage Paul, I believe, states that most people will marry because they do not have the gift (charisma) of singleness. Verse 7 (I wish that all mean were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that" is Paul indicating that he has the gift of singleness (though he is not unaware of sexual desire) while at the same time hinting that most of the Corinthians do not have the gift of singleness and so they should marry. Verses 36ff are Paul's preferred option but he realises and acknolwledges that mkost do not have the gift of singleness.

The verse form 2 Cor may indicate that although Paul had the gift of singleness he still had to struggle with 'inwardly burning' in a society where sex was portrayed at every corner.

2 Cor 12 refers to God's strength available to Paul in his weakness (same cognate as in 2 Cor 11:29)

Although it may sound 'pious' The Paul who contacted you should be encouraged to pray for god's strength. I also think it is not out of line to pray for the gift of singleness if it will turn out that his wife will live for a while or to pray that his wife may go to be with the Lord (depends what 'seriously brain damaged' means. He is proaably aware of the cases of people who have suddenly woken up from coma.

As an example you could cite a sailor who is at sea in the Middle East many months from his wife. how does a Christian man cope in that situation? What about men from Chian who left heir fmailies behind for eyars in search of a future overseas only to go back and visit their wives and families after many, many years.

Not an easy question to answer becasue we are not in the situation oursleves. but that's my tuppence worth of suggesitons.

===========================

My heart goes out to a brother who has a wife in a coma-like state. We can all express our sympathy but cannot really understand what he is going through as his experience is very personal to himself. I have been in the ministry for 15 years. I have a wife who is a faithful partner in ministry, one who loves the Lord and has blessed me greatly. We have two terrific children.My situation is different and in some ways similar to Pauls... My wife has always seen sex as a duty and means of pro-creation, but no more. Ill health over the past several years has made it worse. For over 10 years (in my 40's) I have lived a celibate life to maintain harmony in the home. For years I thought about how much easier it would be to live a single life.

Isn't it easier to do without something if it is not always "in your face"?I have a normal desire to be close and intimate but I know that I can't. I had to spend years in prayer before I had any degree peace with simply accepting the fact that my wife is not just unwilling but unable to respond. When I accepted that she is 'unable' I had to lower the bar of my expectations of marriage, for me anyway. I went through a grieving period that my marriage could never be what I would like it to be, but the Lord has given me the peace to accept this. In a very real way I have to look at my wife as having a disability. If one was physically disabled and could not walk you would not expect them to walk, you would not pressure them to do something they were incapable of doing. This is not easy and I still feel that something special is missing, but I have a peace about it. I am a counsellor and minister, I am working on a D-Min in the area of divorce recovery. I still struggle if a client discusses sexual dysfunction, I refer at this point.What I can say to Paul is that he really needs to ask the Lord to give him a peace about this situation, I am sure that he will. He needs to accept that is wife is unable, I am sure that he has done this. He needs to avoid situations that can pose temptations. There is no magic fix! I have subsequently found others that live with a woman, have a lifetime committment to this woman, sleep next to her, eat across the table from her, but maintian a platonic relationship.

God does give the strength but out expectations of marriage simply do not remain the same as they may have been in courtship and even in early marriage.

==========================

I can´t imagine myself being in Paul´s shoes, it is really a very difficult situation. However, if he really wants to live scripturally he has to give up secular psychological concept of need. Erik From, Maslow and others did not take from the Bible the teaching that man needs to be loved. The Bible teaches that we must love unconditionally. Say to Paul that he should talk with Paul, the apostle. In his letters Paul deals with this matter of "needs". Look at Phillipians 3:7- 14, 4:5-8, 10-13.

===========================

Perhaps we should consider the restoration of Biblical polygamy for cases like this. It would be difficult (to say the least) to conform to the laws of the secular state, but does this make it impossible to consider? Perhaps even the State could allow polygamy in exceptional cases like this, if the Crown or the the designated Minister of the Crown made a special exception. Polygamy would allow this poor man to remain committed to his comatose wife, and yet find the companionship which he surely needs.

It would take great compassion and understanding on the part of the second wife. She would have to enter in with full knowledge and with readiness to support the man's caring for his first wife. She would need, as his help-mate, to be willing to positively support the injured wife in whatever her medical outcome might be, and whatever state of rehabilitation she might eventually achieve.

This would allow the man to keep his protector/husband role for his first wife, as he undertook in the marriage ceremony, but also allow him to fulfil his calling in life with a functioning wife by his side.

Some may object that this is an unfair solution because if the roles were reversed, there is no Biblical model of polyandry, so a wife with a comatose husband would have to divorce him if she wanted to remarry. My only answer is yes, she would, but is this so unBiblical? Her divorce of him would be justified by Biblical principles: he was unable to function as a husband (his comanionship, intimacy, provision and protection would all be absent), and she could not perform the wifely role of help-mate. A comatose person does not need a 'help-mate' (the wife's role)'; whereas a comatose person could surely be said to still need a protector and provider (the husband's role). I know these role distincitions are not agreed on by all Christians, but in my view, they are clearly found in Scripture, and to me they seem pertinent to the case of a comatose spouse.

What would happen if a miracle occurred and the comatose wife achieved a full recovery? How would the man live with two fully functional wives? How would the women live having to share a husband? There are no easy answers here, but surely, with Christian love, a solution could be found. The two options that occur to me are that the second marriage could be entered into on the contractual basis that if the first wife made a full recovery, any one party was free to call for a divorce of the second marriage. Or the three of them could move to a part of the world where polygamy was socially acceptable. I know neither of these options look all that inviting, but nothing is easy about this case from the very beginning.

Where polygamy was acceptable in the Jewish culture, marriage of a second wife would have been the obvious choice for a man who loved his first wife, but she was unable to perform all the functions of a wife. Ephraim, Peninnah and Hannah are possibly an example of this.

Your correspondent could read William Luck's book on divorce (unfortunately out of print) which has the best discussion of polygamy from a Christian perspective that I know of.

[Note from David Instone-Brewer: Jesus clearly teaches against polygamy -this was part of OT society which the OT tried to limit and the NT forbids]

=============================

What an enormously unhappy situation and my heart goes out so strongly to Paul. I have to say the first reaction that popped into my head is that - although it is not as a result of a hardened heart - Paul's wife is withholding fundamental marital rights from him through incapacity.

I don¹t believe there is a black and white, wrong or right about this situation. What I know is that we have a compassionate God who is just as interested in Paul's needs and comfort as he is about his distaste for divorce. This certainly falls into the category of "grey". What I do believe is black and white is that while he remains married to his current wife he would be in sin to have a relationship with another woman.

Having said that though my thinking is this. I believe he has a right to divorce - although without neglecting the needs his wife might have of him to ensure her care - because she is withholding from him his rights inside a marriage. I don¹t mean for this to sound harsh but it would seem that she has a fundamental need for medical care that must be provided some how and he has an obligation to her to ensure that happens and to provide her with "brotherly" love but it would seem she no longer has need of him as a husband.

It would seem that the greater sin here would be for him to have a relationship on the side rather than to divorce and then be free to remarry.
If his wife has no chance of moving beyond her current state and he can sensitively deal with any family who might be genuinely hurt by his divorcing his wife, he should do so and be free for another relationship.

I would however say that he might want to consider a reasonable period of waiting to see if there will be an improvement and then a reasonable period of waiting before pursuing another relationship after a divorce to give other loved ones affected by this tragedy a chance to come to terms with his moving on. This would be especially so where children are involved.

It would seem to me that so long as he deals compassionately with his wife and family and does not neglect her medical needs and what ministry he can give her he should move onto another life.

Anyway that is what my conscience could bear - you never know what goes on for others.

========================================

This is where polygamy would help but he's studying for the ministry & has to be a husband of one wife. Plus you've argued convincingly that Jesus outlawed polygamy i.e. marrying a second wife, not getting rid of wives if one is already a polygamist.

I can't see the answer he'd like. He's right not to divorce her (unless you justify it on the basis she cannot fulfil her conjugal obligations). Anyway he doesn't want to do that. This seems a clear case of 'for better for worse' and has happened many times before. Obviously as a man he feels sexual desire & the desire for the warm love of a woman, but his case is much the same as a man called to celibacy (God gives them the gift & grace to stay single but I'm sure they still experience sexual desire & longing) and to a lesser degree the single man who wants to marry but can't find a woman or the right woman. His case is also similar to the Christian man who has got divorced for a biblically illegimate reason & thus biblically may not remarry.

This is hard & I am not unsympathetic to him but I can't see a way he can either get married again or have a non-marital sexual relationship with another woman. It is a case of living by grace, tough grace.

While he might have to struggle for a while God may be gracious & take his comatose wife (or even heal her - but being brain damaged this could be worse).

================================

From my own perspective, I first want to say beyond any "biblical" teachings, I believe our G-d calls us to be compassionate as well as grounded in law. Erring on the side of compassion seems to be needed here. But, along with the 9 months, did doctors already tell this man that his wife is going to be in a vegetative state permenantly now? If so, Ok, realistically he should be free to pursue a supportative relationship with someone else, in time. I would however like to know the prognosis long term. Nine months, the amount of time our mothers carried us in the womb, seems fairly short to me on this matter. And considering the path this man's life is leading in the work of a minister himself, he may want to be more patient, for numerous reasons.

Our lives are already so complicated today by modern medicine's advances we can hardly know what to do on any matters ethically, anymore. But I hope this man will take a few more months to move on with is life. Practically speaking, he is doing a wonderful thing by asking for thoughts and guidance of those he can respect. So hopefully he will take to heart those very thoughts.

God's expectations of all of us are beyond our ability to comprehend. But we have to at least try to live up to them. No one is promised any particular "quality" of life when we come into this world. We each have our, "crosses to bear", for lack of a better term. So maybe this is one to bear a bit longer than is hoped for??? I will only hope and pray this couple's life can be made peaceful. No one should have to bear these trials for too long.

====================================

I heard a story last year of an American Seminary Professor who's wife was in a similar state. He resigned his seminary position to care for her and his colleagues begged him to reconsider. They said things like, She does not know or recognise you.

After thinking a little while he said. You are right she does not know me, but the proble is that I know her and I promised before Almighty God to care for her for better for worse, my resignation stands!

====================================

This is a tough one... since I have been a roman catholic pro life activist before I turned anglican/episcopal, I know both sides of the issue at stake.
Many moral dilemmas arise as a result of the progress of medical science... doctors succeed in keeping humans alive against all odds, but the price we have to pay for this can sometimes be rather high with cases like this one.

The whole discussion in the Netherlands about euthanasia about a decade ago when it was more or less 'legalised' / condoned was permeated by similar dilemmas.
If medical science can keep humans alive where they would have died without all this high tech medical equipment, then is ending the life of people in an unending coma on a life support machine murder/euthanasia or just respecting the course of nature without interfering with it anymore?

What is more respectful, to save human life at all costs or to accept our earthly fragility and tragedy inherent in our fallen state, i.e. of being mortal?
I have no bible verses for this man to help him overcome his tragedy, because I don't believe they do exist... maybe the general outline of the bible that we should respect human lives could be approached in a new way adapted to our day and age.
The specifics of such an approach should be decided by medical scientists and politicians and I don't know what is possible in the country this sir is living in.

If ending her life support is not an issue, it becomes even more difficult.... ending it of course if it is evident that the chances of her waking up are minimal (we never know for sure if she wouldn't have woken up of course).
We shouldn't forget that until about a century or so ago, the average life span was about 35 years and that our lives were difficult and harsh. These problems didn't exist then.

I think that considering a divorce could be possible, but I don't know anything about the possibilities of divorcing a wife in coma... so legal advice would be needed also.

To be quite honest, this is the best I can come up with... I hope other people will have better practical knowledge and insights into this problem.

=================================

I am sorry to hear of your wife's unfortunate state and my heart goes out to you. However, it has only been 9 months and brother, that is not a very long period of time. You say you do not want to divorce her yet you inquire as to how to reconcile the need to be loved and to find the love of a woman. What if she were totally conscious yet bedridden with a terminal disease? Would that change your situation? How do you know that our loving Messiah will not bring her out of this coma? It is my humble opinion that you are "struggling with my future desire to again find the love of a woman" much too early in the scheme of things.

You do not state whether or not she is "brain dead" or what a "coma-like state" is. There should be no "struggle with future desires" in the present. Perhaps you nights would be better spent on your knees for her rather than worrying. I am sorry if this sounds non-compassionate but I believe you could be way out ahead of your heavenly Father on this.

I can offer you my experience although quite different. I lived without the love and intimacy of my wife for over ten years while struggling with what to do. After reading Dr. Brewer's wonderful book, I realized that I did in fact have scriptural grounds for divorce ( when a spouse refuses to provide conjugal love). However, even with that knowledge, I struggled an additional 2 years before taking that step. That is 156 months, brother. My heart goes out to you in this very difficult time; however, I believe you will know what to do in His time and not yours.

============================

I think he needs to stay with his wife - the vow he took is in sickness and in health till death us do part. If he wants to remain true to biblical principles he will stay by his wife until the day she dies. The love of a woman/man can be an idol and often is in our society. We are called to be different as Christians and our first love must be the Lord. Then, we love our spouse - but must be true to our marriage vows. He is in a very difficult position and it is heart-wrenching - but then life often is!! Many godly people are single and would love to be married, but embrace singleness until the Lord changes their position. Many married people would love to be single but as Christians are called to honour their marriage vows. Sickness/coma does not release him from his marriage vows - he certainly should NOT divorce his wife!!

===========================================

This feels similar to when a family is faced with "pulling the plug" on a loved-one who is on life support. We have the privilege as believers of seeking direction from God. As a pastor, I've stood with family members when we've felt that God is saying, "Don't pull the plug. There's more to come." I've also stood with family members when God seemed to be saying, "It's all over. This body is being kept alive by machines, but your loved one is gone. It's okay to pull the plug because that's not going to be the cause of this person's death."

If I were this man's pastor, I would not even try to tell him what to do. I think it's going to be through his struggling to know the heart of God in the matter...and I would be supportive of his difficult decision. I don't have a principle that would dictate what he should do. It's going to be day by day...bobbing along in the river of God and seeking God's mind in the matter.

Interestingly, I do know a minister here in Southern California who was in the middle of a divorce when his wife had a severe stroke. He did proceed with the divorce, but has made provision for her to be cared for in a medical facility and tends to her welfare. So does his son, I believe. He has remarried and his current wife is a part of the support team as well.

Paul's response to these replies:

Some of your group members wanted additional information. I think some misconstrue what is taking place. Until one begins this process of traumatic separation, a person doesn't typically think about these things. These are agonizing questions of the heart, mind and spirit.

Like I said, 3am comes quickly with all the night demons. I hope this helps and you will provide this information to the group so that those who needed to know more have what they need.

1. I am not looking to start up a relationship. I think my moral crisis is misunderstood by some. I know someday I would want to have a relationship. Months of lying in bed is a lot of time to think.

2. My wife had a significant global anoxic event and is in a persistent vegetative state and will probably remain like this for the rest of her life. Her prognosis is poor and she is on a feeding tube only. I used the term coma-like because many do not understand "coma". It wasn't a stroke. It was a total anoxic event. She went into cardiac arrest and was left in that state for a prolonged period of time. She has no volitional movements. Basically she is trapped inside herself. We believe there is some level of cognitive awareness.

Many have advised on remaining celibate. Scripture teaches that the call to celibacy is strictly for those who can receive it. Reference the teaching to eunuchs. But there was no condemnation for those who could not receive such counsel.

My understanding is that Paul taught the primary purpose for marriage in the NT was to avoid sexual immorality and nowhere can I find that God intended man to be alone save for those who could receive such doctrine.

One man mentioned a wife who is paralyzed from the neck down, but they are still equally yoked and able to express their eros love one for another.

Another stated that there are times when sexually intimacy is to be set aside. But Scripture says by mutual agreement and only for time and in that time both are to be given to prayer and fasting, lest Satan be given a strong hold.

There were a few who said that a grounds for divorce exist. They are correct. The Solomonic riddle here involves 2 scenarios:
1. There was a man who's wife was in a coma. She had been that way for many years. Unable to deal with the human experience, he withdraw from his wife. He was unable to visit or see her in such a state. He went home, raised their children, never entered a relationship or divorced.He died single.
2. The 2nd man same scenario... brought his wife home. He loved her, cared for her, tended to her. Over time he found a new love. He divorced his comatose wife, but continued a life long commitment to his covenant to care for, love her and provide for her while enjoying the fruits of his new marriage.

Question: Which one fulfilled his vows/covenant?

I can feel this man's pain through the written words. I am reminded of I Cor 10:13: God will not test us beyond what we are able to bear by His grace. If celibacy is not his gift, God will not demand this of him. However, we should not look for quick cook book answers from the Church to release us from the responsibilities we feel. I believe that in issues that appear grey, God will judge us according to what our conscience convicts us (just like eating meat offered to idols). I whole-heartedly agree that nine months is too early to worry about this issue. Focusing on God may help find His plan in all of this. Trust, faith, endurance are some of the issues - not celibacy; that is only the result of the former. Why is wrongly placed sexual desires any different than any other sin? It is common, it is forgivable, but we should not test the grace of God by purposely sinning. But if we fail, is it so bad that we cannot come to God afterwards? Why dwell on this and make one's desires worse? Is there a father who would give his child a stone when he asked for bread? Will our Heavenly Father ignore our physical needs when we cry out to Him?

His answers might surprise you. God surprised ME! When I cried to God to grant me the intimacy I wanted from my husband, He led me instead to Dr. Instone-Brewers writtings inadvertently (I was looking for an out-of-print book when I came across his web site). I was not seeking a release from my marriage vows but He made it clear that I did not have a marriage and that He knew my needs. He sent other messangers too, before and during my marriage!!! (eg a christian friend who was divorced and wanted to know what the Bible said about remarriage caused me to research the subject). There was much more (it was a living hell), but suffice it to say that after almost 20 years of marriage, I had to admit my sin in ignoring God's multiple messages because I had an idea of what I thought He meant. I would not change my mind even though I was dying from the inside and my children (artificially acquired) were dying with me. He knows what you need: a partner in intimacy, or celibacy for a time to develop your focus on HIM.Let me encourage you to come to Him for you answers and not to men (or women). I will keep you in my prayers and I cry with you. I will keep your wife in my prayers, I try to fix people like her every day. In the process of my struggle, God drew me to Himself for true intimacy with the Almighty! I bear the scars of my battles, but I would not trade them for the world-they taught me soooo much.

PS I am not a theologian or a Pastor.

================================

I think we have problems with celibacy because we condemn masturbation. If you allow sperm to build up, the normal human (and animal) consequence is a corresponding build-up of physical desire, because the body thinks it is time to reproduce. Instead, why don't we treat the expulsion of sperm as doing a 'number three' in the toilet. Poor Simon Stylites, sitting on his column, was plagued by sexual fantasies, but only because he was suffering from sperm constipation.

The only possible scriptures against masturbation are the story of Onan and 'lusting after someone in your heart'. The story of Onan is about the command to give children to your dead brother's wife, which he was refusing to fulfil. Jesus' teaching about lusting being like adultery is talking about coveting a specific person. Anyway, masterbation doesn't require sexual imagery if there is a build-up of sperm.

Celibacy becomes possible when we don't suffer from 'number three' constipation, though it is still very very difficult because our society doesn't have much room for warm hugging relationships which don't involve sex.

================================

Wow what a can of worms!!!! I have been twisting my brain around this proposition of Celibacy - especially in marriage as one of your responders has accepted as his lot in life and once again I can see no black and white answers to this question. The gift of celibacy is rare and in all the years I have walked as a Christian I have met only one true celibate that I know of (excluding enforced celibates i.e. priests and nuns).

Whilst I feel that it is unnatural to be celibate and totally wrong inside marriage except in extreme circumstances (even with quite severe physical disabilities couples can still fulfil intimate sexual desires - maybe not intercourse but that isn't the be all and end all of sex in any case), there are periods of time when abstinence is necessary. Paul's situation is one of those cases.There seems to me to be a difference between celibacy i.e. a life calling or choosing of no intimate/sexual relationship with a partner and times of abstinence.

I have been married for 21 years and both I and my husband have at times through injury and illness or distance have had to abstain from sex. The longest period was 2 months after I had some serious surgery and was incapable of physical relationships. My husband was in a forced abstinence at that time but it wasn¹t celibacy.

Abstinence rather than celibacy is also the biblical direction for single people until they find a marriage partner rather than celibacy. Abstinence is an obedience issue i.e. it is sinful to fornicate in this case rather than a calling.

So getting back to Paul's dilemma yes I think there are periods of abstinence in a marriage relationship and sometimes because of injury there might never be intercourse but that shouldn¹t prevent sexual relationships in other ways. If I relate it to the Solomonic riddle my answer is both men were right as they did what their conscience could bear and it is up to the individual as in my view is no black and white answer to this riddle. Personally I would choose the latter, I believe it is more compassionate and realistic and a greater fulfilment of the marriage vows than the first - but that is my conscience speaking.

I wish Paul well in his quest for peace and guidance on this matter and pray that he gets real support during this difficult time.

=================================

As stated in my first reply to you - I have been foreced to be celibate because of my wife's inability to accept sex as a normal and pleasurable aspect of a relationship - not something that must be just tolerated as a means of reproduction - or endure under duress to meet some Biblical standard but consciously or unconsciously harbour anger for afterwards. I don't believe that this grounds for divorce. Like Paul, I have longed for an embrace, touch and intimacy - I'm sure just as much as he does.
But I have to accept that this is not possible for me, God has given me the grace to accept it although I do wish things were different. Like Paul, I do not believe that I have the 'gift' of celibacy... I have no clear answer - I live daily with the question.I have had Christian colleagues tell me that it would be OK to go out and have a private friend. One psychologist recommended what he called an alliance that all parties knew about but accepted, maybe a woman in a similar situation, he called a "F___ Buddy". Societally I have had the green light but before God it would be wrong.

====================================

First, the ethical standard of "chastity in singleness and fidelity in marriage," a standard which I believe is an adequate, though understandably difficult, one to apply in this case, is, nonetheless, the ethic of Scripture. I see no reason to start making exceptions now.

Second, while divorce for conjugal neglect is permissible according to Exodus 21, it is clearly directed to intentional neglect prejudiced by a competing love interest. While this does not appear to be the case for Paul, it appears it may become the case for his now comatose wife. And while St. Paul's counsel in 1 Corinthians 7 allows for brief separations within marriage, he is not envisioning nor addressing comatose spouses. Neither text argues grounds for divorce for Paul in my opinion.

Third, in Paul's "Solomonic riddle," neither man fulfilled their marriage vows, though the second was trying harder to fulfill the spirit of the law than the first, though in a very hypocritical way. Has he not colluded by finding "a new love" his own "grounds for divorce," something akin to the old days when people in London would take the train to Bristol for the weekend? Which is why, by the way, secular courts adopted a "no fault" approach. They were tired of the hypocrisy of these shame trials and legal fictions undermining the integrity of public law.

Fourth, marriage as a public good must not be reduced to merely an instrumental good that carries and upholds individual rights/duties. It is preeminently a spiritual good that has enduring moral obligations that transcend the mere calculation of our personal interests. Regardless of the individual benefits which may or may not accrue to us within our individual marriages, marriage itself must not be evaluated purely through the lens of a merely utilitarian or pragmatic analysis. Such a breakdown of the spiritual meaning of marriage inevitably leads to "...a very specific loss of the ability to see the interconnection of bios and person and thus may lead one to degrade one's partner to the status of a mere function-bearer in this one area of sex." (Thielicke, The Ethics of Sex, p. 24)

Thielicke has many insightful comments to offer about sex and marriage, not the least of which is his insistence on the being of the partner and the indivisible unity of their whole personhood. I recommend this as a reading for Paul and for the group with respect to Paul's case.

=================================

Answer to the Solomonic riddle: BOTH have

The question here is what action has ended the marriage. what grounds have permitted the " un " bounding, obviously it is the inability to fulfill the marriage covenants. One who chooses to marry cares for the things of the world and how to please his mate. the question here is what emotions are driving the desire to remarry, or is it the unaccustomedness of dealing with the same temptations one once dealt with in their youth before marriage,, I will grant they are more difficult after having experienced physidal onenes with another. But Gods promise is still the same,, to not tempt us beyond what we can stand and always provide us with a way out of that temptation,,Last i read that produces Character, strength, and tempers our faith. Is this to be missed or avoided? this is a question to be answered? But does God have lessons to be learned, more preparations to be made in your life to be the one who GOD would want you to be,, GROWTH to be a even better catch for the angel of a Lady he will give you one day,, I do believe it ( the scriptures ) regards contentment in our present circumstances to be a blessed state, does it not,, Paul address this to some extent

BUT let me pose a third example A man, broken and experiencing struggles because of his wife's Coma, Continues to care for his wife, unknowing what God plans to do with his wife , whether he desires to take her home to glory or to leave here here on this earth, This man prays and seeks God, Gives his struggles to God and seeks his strength and his lessons to be learned, Grows through this experience closer to God, takes the time to understand the struggles his single and single again, and single parent brothers and sisters experience, grows in his empathy towards their condition, spends his time preparing to be the Man God called him to be regardless of marriage, wife, or circumstances. This same man later discerns and also learns through Prayer, Circumstances, and Confirmations of God that God does not intend to revive his wife, and later that same God does provided another help meet who is prepared to aid him in his ministry, Which he has done all along during this time of waiting, growing in his empathy and passion towards all of God's children in their circumstances, Just as Jesus was, This man marries again after divorcing his comatose wife, and they both continue to provide care to his former wife.

Not only does this man provide for his wife, care for his former wife, But God has used his time of Celibacy to renew his faith, Strengthen his character, and by this mans devotion to God and seeking Gods understanding over his own, has grown in Virtue in Mens and God's eyes. for this man can empathize with the Married, the widowed, the divorced, the single parent, the single again, the never married, the fatherless or motherless child. he can minister to all, not just the VMP's ( Very Married Persons- who have always been married other than childhood) This man developed a compassion and passion to serve ALL men and women regardless of their maritial status ( considering heaven, WE WILL NOT HAVE A MARRIAGE STATUS THERE) so this man will not practice any schism in his service towards the church because of Marriage status. This man will be able to relate his sermons towards all of his congregation from his own experiences, and not favor just the married audiences.

So i ask you the apostle Pauls riddle,, who has done more virtuosly, the first man, the second man or the third.
Paul understood all three, single, married and Single again

May God richly bless you and cover your heart and mind with his Holy Spirit as you seek his Path through this time of your life

==============================

Just because someone was a eunuchs does not mean that they were celibate. They may have only been castrated and had their testicles removed, though that does not render them a celibate life it just makes them not able to have kids protecting the blood line of the king. There desire may go down to nil as well. I don't believe we are called to be celibate but on maybe the most rarest of cases and the grace is probably already there and the desire gone. But if you have a desire you only are going to get yourself in trouble by building it up and ending up in a destructive faze trying to live up to expectations your body was never meant to meet.

I would say to anyone contemplating a celibate life, if you have to ask about it and wonder...it's not for you don't go there. Those that have a call of celibacy know it and have it and don't need to talk about it to confirm it.

=================================

I sorely disagree that this issue deals with celibacy at this point, unless we want to bring the discussion down to fleshly issues instead of spiritual ones. Paul's (the apostle) comments about celibacy had nothing to do with this situation whatsoever.

They had to do with remaining single over against marriage. Paul has a covenant relationship with his wife. My bigger answer is a question back to Paul and the respondees: Did Hosea seek after Gomar because none other could meet his sexual needs/desires or for some other compelling reason? I can just see the enemy smirking as this gets pulled down and away from the more faithfull call. I cheer Paul on as a fellow brother who too battles for his heart, to remain faithfull to the call of God that is on it. Paul, most likely, has a much bigger hill to take than most of us, so far, and God's grace surrounds him whether, in sincere effort, he reaches the top or not. Battle on Paul, the war rages around us, and we need each other desperately.

==================================

I think it sounds like Paul is not hearing the answer he wanted and is now searching for a way to get it. Celibacy is NOT a death sentence. It is a challenge, for sure, but for a man going into the role of ministering to others to be so set on his own needs, I think it's time to ask whether or not he is ALREADY in a new relationship and is looking for justification for it. [He has denied this - David IB] My heart goes out to all involved.

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

My mother-in-law wants to be reconciled to her husband who married his secretary

2007-10-17T12:34:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
My "Christian" father-in-law initiated a non-biblical divorce (no grounds) and is now remarried (according to the State) to his secretary, 20 years younger than himself. My Christian mother-in-law is still single and is waiting to be reconciled to him even though he says he does not want to come back to her (he says it would be wrong for him to divorce his current wife).

I understand from your writing that you would say that she can remarry (as the "innocent" party), although she does not want to. This happened 2 years ago and my wife and I do not fellowship with him (though we always welcome attempts for reconciliation and discussion), and we are of the opinion that we cannot have fellowship with him until he repents and separates from his current wife.

Reply: Based on what you say, your Father-in-law clearly wronged his wife when he divorced her, and he needs to repent of this and ask her forgiveness. But he is also right to say that it would be wrong for him to divorce his second wife, to whom he has made vows.

The Bible isn't clear on what should happen in such situations, so I apply the simple aphorism "Two wrongs don't make a right". In any case, if he did divorce his second wife in order to 'do the right thing', and then reconcile with his first wife, this would not be a recipe for a good marriage.

The Bible does however tell us that someone in the situation of your Mother-in-law is 'no longer bound' - ie free to remarry (1Cor 7.15) - she has been divorced against her will, without good grounds, just like those in Corinth who were divorced by the Roman divorce-by-separation. Although this wasn't based on Biblical grounds for divorce, Paul appears to allow the wronged party to regard it as a proper divorce, presumably because they have been deserted (a severe form of neglect).

Follow-on question:
In your estimation, what is it that cancelled my father-in-law's covenant with his first wife? What was the coup de grace? To me, this seems to be the crux of the matter. He vowed "until death do us part" to his first wife and so I can't see anyway out for him (though I might even grant him divorce if he had some justifiable reason that could be supported to some extent biblically. But that was not the case, and he doesn't argue that.)

You wrote, "In general the first marriage is irreparable, so he should remain faithful to the second." --That is usually the case, I agree. In this case, though, his first wife is patiently waiting for him and has a measure of forgiveness that is commendable in my eyes. She is bright, energetic, feeling, submissive, and very beautiful as well.

Reply: I agree that your father-in-law is at fault, if there were no biblical grounds for a divorce, and it sounds like he was very foolish as well, to leave such a devoted wife. Perhaps he will come to regret it, and perhaps he will even return. But (not being personally involved) I also take into considerations his second wife - which you are entitled to take less interest in.

We both agree that he was wrong to do what he did, but I am unsure which is the best way forward. Legalism might demand that he break up his second marriage and go back to his first, but legalism isn't always the best way. At present his motive is to find what is best for him. We need to pray that he will repent and be motivated to find what is best for everyone else instead.
See more at Can I Get Married Again? in Divorce & Remarriage in the Church
www.DivorceRemarriage.com

In the OT an adulterer would have been stoned anyway, thereby ending the marriage

2007-10-17T00:39:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
From what I have gathered, Jesus is allowing divorce for sexual faithfulness, material support (food & clothing) and emotional support (love) as per OT law which he came to "fulfill not abolish" (beginning of sermon on the Mount) but He is pointing out the OT exception for adultery, in which case a person would have been stoned according to old testament law anyway (ending the marriage), or in more lenient times they would have been an adulterer anyway so the divorce certificate would not have made any difference.

If this understanding is correct, then Jesus is allowing the husband to remarry without a formal divorce certificate similar to when Paul says a spouse can re-marry if their unbelieving spouse abandons them

Reply: You are right that the OT prescribes the death penalty for adultery, but Dt.24.1 also says that you should give a divorce certificate to a wife who has committed a "matter of indecency" (lit "a thing of nakedness"). This potential contradiction can be solved by saying that the death penalty is only applied if there is enough evidence, or if she is taken 'in the act', but probably it is due to different punishments being applied at different times in the history of the OT.

Some Jews in the 1st C appear to have decided that adultery should still be punished by death if there is enough evidence, as in Jn.8 - though it was death by mob violence, not by official execution, because the Romans did not allow the Jews to apply a death penalty. But most Pharisees were against the death penalty and preferred other punishments, so they were happy to apply Dt.24.1 and give a divorce certificate to an adulteress.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that an adulteress doesn't need a divorce certificate - for any 1st C Jew, the Law of Moses was absolutely clear that she did require one.
See more on the non-application of the death penalty in Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible
www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Concrete evidence of efforts to reconcile is more appropriate than a Service of Repentance

2007-10-17T00:33:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
You recommend a Service of Repentance for formerly married persons who wish to marry again. This seems reasonable but not by itself. While you point out that a church or pastor finds it difficult to thoroughly research the details of prior relationships and marriages/divorces, some of our church leaders believe that more concrete evidence of good-faith efforts (to reconcile, put things right, seek foregiveness) is appropriate and/or necessary. Can you comment?

Reply: By the time it gets to a remarriage, any realistic opportunity for reconciliation etc is usually over. If that person was in our pastoral care when the first marriage broke up, we will know if there were efforts at reconciliation, and we should have been making sure that there were. If it gets to the point of remarriage and we aren't sure, then we as pastors, are partly to blame. I don't see the point of post-mortems, and I would be very hesitant to refuse to marry a couple simply because I wasn't convinced about how the previous marriage ended. There is one exception - as I say in the book - that I would be very reluctant to marry someone to the person with whom they committed adultery and thereby broke up the previous marriage.
See more at Is Remarriage Adultery? in Divorce & Remarriage in the Church
www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Isn't "emotional neglect" tantamount to "any cause"?

2007-10-17T00:30:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
I understand that you reject the "any cause" ground for divorce, but do accept the ground of emotional neglect. Some of the leaders of our church see "emotional neglect" as being tantamount to "any cause" in today's climate of psychological analysis/argument and in a modern divorce court. Can you comment?

Reply: "Emotional neglect" is a very woolly phrase which can be interpreted too widely, so I agree that it can be unhelpful and misleading. It would be a hopeless phrase to use in legislation, but it does help to encapsulate an idea. Ex.21.10f refers starkly to sexual activity, and Paul reflects this in 1Cor.7.3-5, but I wanted to avoid the situation where one partner demands "sex" when they should be offering love. I also wanted a phrase which mirrored the phrase "material support".

But I agree that the phrase "emotional support" could be used by people who have 'fallen out of love' as an excuse to end a marriage, when really they should get counselling, or go on a holiday, or stop reading girlie mags. I made this clear in one of my emails about a girl who 'no longer loved' her husband.

So I agree that "emotional support" can be misleading, but I used this terms as a good middle ground between "sex" and "love". I'd welcome ideas for a replacement.
See more at Defining Biblical grounds for divorce in Divorce & Remarriage in the Church
www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Jesus teaches very clearly that the only marriage that can be dissolved is the one that never occurred in the first place.

2007-10-17T00:25:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
Jesus speaks to divorce specifically using the word "porneia" which is fornication. In Matthew Jesus is standing on ground under Antipas' authority. Antipas had just beheaded John the Baptist for questioning his marriage to his niece. A marriage within his own family. Jesus teaches very clearly that the only marriage that can be dissolved is the one that never occurred in the first place. One involving incest or kinsman. Remarriage is not an option

Reply: This view is based on Bonsirven's interpretations of porneia which became popular before all of the Dead Sea Scrolls had been analysed. Now that we have access to all the Scrolls, I think there is only one scholar who still holds to it (Murphy O'Conner, a Catholic in Jerusalem), apart from those who haven't looked at the recent discoveries.
I cover this theory in a little bit of detail in Section 2 of chap.10 of my academic book. If you want more details, see my paper on the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls "Nomological Exegesis in Qumran 'Divorce' Texts" (Revue de Qumran, 18, 1998, 561-579).
www.DivorceRemarriage.com

The damage my wife received as a child makes her very abusive toward me.

2007-10-16T15:24:00.002-07:00

Someone emailed:
Thank you for your incredible work. I have not had a chance to read all of it yet but I already have the sense that you have gone WAY beyond anything else I have found toward discovering the "elusive authorial intent" regarding God's view of divorce.

My wife and I both love the Lord, but the damage she received as a child from her Father has made her very abusive toward me. The verbal abuse started on our wedding night and escalated over the following twelve months to her threatening to kill me a number of times and eventually attacking me with a large henkle knife (please understand that I have been what most people would call a good husband who has only tried to love her)

We were married two years ago but have been separated for the last eight months. I have regained most of my health but although she is wiling to reconcile, I have lost all hope of reasoning with her as she does not seem to be able to hear or see anything but her own view.

I have lost all hope of coming to a place of agreement with her on even the most basic of our disagreements and although I care about her deeply, I become physically ill at the thought of getting back together with her.

BUT . . . I will do whatever will please my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I have hope of freedom from what I have read so far on the web from "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible" and I would be honored if you could point me to a specific chapter or commentary on the question "is attempted murder grounds for divorce in God's eyes?"

It hurts me deeply to even ask this, because I care about my wife, and I am not bitter toward her, but I simply can't go back there.

Reply: I'm sorry to hear about your sad situation. The Biblical grounds for divorce are sexual faithfulness, material support (food & clothing) and emotional support (love). These are the minimum grounds - anything worse is certainly a ground for divorce, and attempted murder is certainly a failure to support.

This is a legalistic reply, and you need much more support than that. Please seek help from your local minister as well as reading and praying on your own. Even if he/she doesn't read scripture in the same way, it will help you to find God's will by looking at your situation in a more dispationate way.

God be with you at this difficult time.

See more at So what can we say to the abused? in Divorce & Remarriage in the Church

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Jesus never mentions remarriage anywhere

2007-10-16T15:24:00.001-07:00

Someone emailed:
Jesus never mentions remarriage. You say that Mark left out part of Jesus' teaching. Did Luke, who was known for his completeness also cut short the teaching of Jesus. And did Paul also leave out Jesus' teachings in Romans and in I Cor. ?

Reply: True, but Jesus never condemns polytheism or sex outside marriage. Every living Jew believed there was only one God, that sex was limited to marriage, and that remarriage was allowed after a valid divorce. Jesus taught that the 'Any Matter' divorces of the Hillelilites (which had become so popular it was virtually the only kind of divorce) was invalid, so if anyone remarried after an invalid divorce they were, in effect, committing adultery.

Luke left out lots of things which are in Mark. Paul left out almost everything in the Gospels. In the area of divorce, Paul doesn't mention anything about porneia. And everyone abbreviated what Jesus said. As John says, there wasn't enough papyrus in the world to record his words verbatim.
See also "Is Remarriage Adultery?" in Divorce & Remarriage in the Church
www.DivorceRemarriage.com

If Jesus was silent about other grounds, shouldn't we be?

2007-10-16T15:21:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
Jesus in the Gospels only names one ground for divorce – 'porneia' -- which is interpreted in various ways (adultery, sexual immorality etc). But he doesn't mention abuse or abandonment which you say is taught by Ex.21.10f. If Jesus was silent about this, shouldn't we be silent as well?

Reply: Jesus didn't affirm the law of Ex.21.10f but Paul uses it as the basis of 1Cor.7 to teach the obligations in marriage included emotional support (v3-5) and material support (vv 32-35). The grounds for divorce of emotional or material neglect were based on Ex.21.10f because this says that if they are not given, the woman can go free. These were the most important verses regarding divorce in 1st C Judaism and are cited or alluded to in the early marriage certificates. The fact that Jesus is silent on this important part of the OT and Jewish law could mean that he disagreed with it but he didn't want to upset his listeners. Or it could mean that he agreed with it so he didn't need to say anything.

He didn't teach anything about there being only one God (though he assumed it), nor that rape is wrong, nor that you should marry before sleeping with someone. Does this mean that he disagreed with these OT teachings? He said lots of other things about marriage & divorce, and all of it in disagreement with a large proportion of Judaism, but in this matter where all Jews agreed (that Ex.21.10f provides grounds for divorce) he said nothing. My conclusion is that Jesus agreed with them, because if he didn't, his silence was very cowardly and totally confusing.
See more at Four Biblical Grounds for Divorce in Divorce & Remarriage in the Church
www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Our church wasnts to make a statement of position on divorce & remarriage

2007-10-16T15:16:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
Our church's elders and pastors are engaged in a study of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Our objective is a statement of position. Among the resources for our study are your two books -- Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, and Divorce and Remarriage in the Church.

We understand that you argue strongly that Jesus and Paul accepted some cultural practices of the day (such as other grounds of divorce and the expectation of remarriage) and that their silence on these practices in the face of very relevant discussion in Scripture (Gospels and Letters) indicates this acceptance. Some of us are reluctant to put these apparent customs/practices on a par with the explicit remarks in Scripture. For example, to some this seems to be the kind of dubious logical reasoning that the Rabbis built into "law" over the years. Can you comment?

Reply: I wouldn't like to say that Jesus & Paul are in agreement with everything they are silent on, and therefore an argument from silence is VERY difficult. I am encouraged to use the argument from silence in this case because:

1) Jesus addresses so many issues concerning marriage & divorce (monogamy, divorce, singleness, forgiveness, compulsory divorce for adultery), even though he was only asked about one issue (the 'Any Cause' type of divorce), and in all of these he disagrees with a large proportion of the Jews. This suggests to me that he is taking the opportunity to list all the ways in which he disagrees with their doctrines in this area.

2) This is an issue where we don't find disagreement among different groups of Jews, which is relatively unusual. Admittedly we don't specifically know how some of those groups DID think, but the Schools of Hillel & Shammai and the early marriage certificates all indicate a uniform doctrine in this area. This would make it doubly likely that Jesus would address the issue if he disagreed with it.

3) This isn't just a Jewish custom, but an ethical principle in God's law as revealed to Moses. We continue to follow the ethical principles in Moses' law, even if we don't follow the ceremonial law. Our national laws are built on the foundation of OT ethics (eg we have different punishments for unpremeditated and premeditated murder - and many other egs, some in the book) and the NT continues to use the OT as a foundation for ethics. And this is right - the OT law is God's revelation of how to live.

THe only areas where we shouldn't follow God's law in the OT is where it is part of a ceremonial system which Jesus outdated, or where it is a response or partial repeal of ancient Near Eastern laws and customs (eg "eye for eye").
See more in "The Church Can’t Do Without It" in Divorce & Remarriage in the Church
www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Matt 5:32: "everyone who divorces his wife, ... causes her to be led into adultery."

2007-10-16T15:12:00.001-07:00

Someone emailed:
I have been reading your book on Divorce and Remarriage (Eerdmans). It is an outstanding work. Any future work on the subject must either agree with your points or endeavor to show why your arguments are not correct.

I have a question. You contend that Jesus believed that remarriage-after-divorce constitutes adultery for--but only for--invalid "for any matter" divorces. I have difficulty harmonizing this interpretation with Matt 5:32: "everyone who divorces his wife, except for a matter of sexual immorality, causes her to be led into adultery." To me, the implicit argument here is:
General principle: A man who divorces his wife causes her to become an adulteress because she almost certainly must remarry and remarriage is adultery.

Exception: The one exception is if the wife is divorced because she has committed adultery.
Implied reason for the exception: The husband cannot make her an adulteress because she has already made herself an adulteress through the very act of adultery that precipitated the divorce.

Inference/Conclusion: The issue is not so much whether the divorce is invalid or valid but whether the woman has already made herself an adulteress or she is first made one by her husband's act of divorce and her inevitable remarriage. In effect, Jesus says that by divorcing one's wife a man turns a woman who was not previously guilty of adultery into an adulteress through remarriage. Therefore, a woman who is divorced by her husband for burning his toast, or for losing her sexual attractiveness, or for nagging, or for gross or minor failure to provide material and/or emotional support, or for any other grounds outside adultery is turned into an adulteress when she remarries.

Have I missed in your book where you deal with this problem? I'd be interested in knowing how you deal with it. I understand that only Matt 5:32a makes this statement (it's not in Luke's parallel or in Mark 10 or in 1 Cor 7) so one could argue that it does not trace back to Jesus and that Matthew misinterpreted Jesus. But even if this were the case, it would have repercussions for your interpretation of Matthew's argument in ch. 19, on which you place considerable weight.

Reply: I did deal with Mt.5.32 on p.159ff, but probably not sufficiently, and I didn't deal with your specific question. I have a couple of problems with the idea that Mt.5.32 makes every divorced woman into an adulteress.

1) There is no compulsion or necessity for a woman to remarry, unless they were divorced for adultery or neglect (so they did not get their ketuvah and might also be rejected by their family).

2) This implies that Jesus is using the word 'adultery' in a totally unique way - ie to mean something like generalised sexual moral failure. If he had said that 'remarriage is equivalent to porneia', this might have been a valid way of reading the Greek.

My solution is that Mt.5.32 & Lk.16.18 are abbreviations of Jesus' teaching in one verse. What can you say in one verse? Given the assumption that virtually all divorces in Jesus' time were based on 'Any Cause' (which Philo and Josephus appear to believe, and we have no evidence to the contrary), it would be correct to generalise that Jesus was declaring ALL divorces at that time to be invalid, so that anyone who divorced his wife would (if she remarried, as was common) make her an adulteress.

We have to allow some generality and inaccuracy in such summaries. After all, when Jesus went into the Temple and looked "at all things" (Mk.11.11), did he look in the Holy of Holies? And did "all" of Judea and "all" the city come out in Mk.1.5, 33? We do this kind of inaccurate generalising "all" the time, but people understand it.

See more at "Abbreviating the Answer" in Divorce & Remarriage in the Bible.

www.DivorceRemarriage.com

I fell in love with a married woman ... who is now a believer

2007-10-16T15:06:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
I fell in love with a married woman who was having serious marital problems. She fell also in love with me. I was an unbaptised new believer who was 27 at the time. She divorced, and we married. She has since become a believer. We both now are more mature in our walk with God, and fear that we are, and have been, in adultery. We are ready to obey what God's will is for us. Should we remain married, or should we divorce or seek an anullment? If we do the latter two, are either of us free to remarry, or should we remain single and chaste? We are concerned for our salvation if we are in continued sin.

Reply: My wisdom, for what it is worth, is that two wrongs don't make a right. You were wrong to divorce and remarry if you didn't have real grounds for a divorce, but you have repented of that. God forgives those who repent. It would be an additional wrong to do the same thing again.

Jesus' and Paul' teaching appear, at first, to give different answers. Jesus said that a person who remarried after an invalid divorce was technically committing adultery. Paul, on the other hand, told the person who had been divorced-by-separation (an invalid form of divorce) that they were free from that marriage.

Paul does not give any reason except: 'God has called us in peace'. He is probably referring to the technical rabbinic phrase 'for the sake of peace', which means 'when the law fails, we follow a pragmatic solution, for the sake of peace'. Paul could have argued that the deserted person was suffering Material Neglect and Emotional Neglect, so they had valid grounds for divorce. But instead, he took the pragmatic view that the divorce had happened and was irreversible, so the marriage was over.

In the light of Paul's view, we need to look again at Jesus' conclusion. It is possible that Jesus was merely stating the logical outcome of remarriage after an invalid divorce, in order to show how serious it was. This is similar to his conclusion that a person who mentally commits adultery is guilty of actual adultery. Presumably mental adultery was not a literal ground for divorce. Similarly technical adultery, due to an invalid divorce, would not be a literal ground for divorce.

Therefore, although divorce without valid grounds is wrong, it still marks the end of a marriage. The person who divorced without valid grounds should repent before God, and if neither partners have remarried they should seek reconciliation.

However, if either partner has remarried, they should not compound the wrong by breaking up yet another marriage.
See also "Is Remarriage Adultery?" in Divorce & Remarriage in the Church
www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Can you give me a quick summary of what you have found out?

2007-10-16T15:02:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
I've just got divorced and I want to know where I stand. Can you give me a quick summary of what you have found out?

Reply: Normally I would say: Come back when you have read the book! I will quickly summarise my main finding, so long as you realise that summaries are sometimes misleading. So I still advise you to read the book.

First of all, I have found that you are in good company, because God is a divorcee, and the Church, the holy bride of Christ, is marrying a divorcee. God's marriage to Israel, whom he had to divorce because of her adultery, was not regarded as just a metaphor by the prophets. They agonised about whether God would be able to remarry after this divorce, and treated it as a difficult legal matter. See my "THree Weddings and a Divorce" and esp. Jer.3.

Secondly, the NT bars polygamists and womanisers from being church leaders, not remarried people. The "man of one wife" can mean either of these things, but it can't really mean someone who has legally remarried. Otherwise it would include those who have remarried after widowhood as well, and Paul recommends this.

Thirdly, the whole idea of divorce as a sin is based on a misunderstanding of scripture. Breaking up the marriage by breaking the marriage vows is a sin, and this leads to divorce. Think of it like a murder of marriage. Murder is the sin, death is the result, and the death certificate (like the divorce certificate) simply records the fact. Malachi records God's anger against those who break their covenant with their bride, by being unfaithful. He doesn't hate the divorcee, but the cause of divorce.

Fourthly (and this is the difficult one) Jesus' teaching is usually misunderstood. He was speaking against the new Hillelite doctrine of divorce for "any matter", based on an interpretation of Dt.24:1 "a matter of indecency". He said that on the basis of this text one cannot get divorced except for a matter of indecency. If one got divorced for "any matter", this was an invalid divorce, so when you remarry you are actually committing adultery, because you are still married to your first partner. This simple message has become confused by abbreviation (esp in Mark), though no first century Jew would have found it confusing. They knew the context well enough.

Lastly 1Cor.7.15 means that anyone who has a valid divorce is free to remarry. Some people think that 'not bound' means 'not bound to the marriage', but he is speaking to people who have been deserted, which was a legal way to divorce someone in the 1st century Graeco-Roman world. Most people think that it only applies to Christians who have been deserted by non-Christians, but Paul has told Christians that they must not use desertion to divorce their partners, so he assumes that the deserter is a non-Christian. It applies just as well to someone divorced by a Christian. Divorce certificates at the time always said: "You are free to marry anyone you wish". Any first century person who read 1Cor.7.15 would understand it to mean that a deserted spouse was free to remarry. It can sometimes sound different to modern ears, but Paul was writing to first century readers.

When we read scripture, we have to listen through their ears in order to hear God's voice. Paul does not state his reasoning, except to say that God has called us to peace, which was a rabbinic phrase meaning 'for the sake of pragmatism'.

Remarriage is permitted for the wronged partner irrespective of the grounds for divorce, because Paul allows it even if they have been divorced by the Roman divorce-by-separation (1 Cor.7.15) which (like modern divorce) does not require any grounds or any consent by the other party.
Well, that's a potted summary. Now read the book, and it will answer all those questions which this summary has brought to your mind. If it doesn't, then get back to me.
For more summaries, includine ones with lots of pictures, see http://www.divorceremarriage.com/
www.DivorceRemarriage.com

Is there a way to get a download of the book?

2007-10-16T14:58:00.000-07:00

Someone emailed:
My Internet access here in Russia is limited and slow....and costly since I pay by the hour. Is there a way to get a download of the book rather than trying to read this online?

Reply: I have provided as much access as possible for a book which is in print. The text is on the web so that you can see it is worth buying. It sounds as if you agree it is worth paying for! I'm sorry that these commercial realities are creating difficulties for you.
www.DivorceRemarriage.com