GREAT article...Thanks for putting the issue of divorce in it's original context and clarifying this "hot button" issue. I did not feel like the article was promoting divorce AT ALL...rather, it showed how we must always go to the Bible and to the original text to seek our answers, being careful to interpret scripture in light of the time, place, and circumstance in which it was written. Thanks again and keep up the good work!

Mr. Neff,
I predict your attempt to mollify those unhappy with the article will fail, and rightfully so. I ask that you sincerely try again.
First, I would suggest that you not tell your very well-educated and intelligent readers that the article, "Didn't say what many thought it did." I read it, as did many others, and I suspect that my analytical reading skills are a match for yours. Your response did not even address the most egregious statement of the article: that divorce is allowable for emotional neglect. Beyond this, you fail to acknowledge what your readers intrinsically understood, that this article does not correctly state God's view of divorce. Orthodox Christians do not need to "get inside the rabbi's head" to understand Jesus’ teaching on this issue. They know through reading the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit, and common sense, that Jesus does not allow divorce whenever we break our wedding vows, which is what the article claimed.
In addition, you wrote, "For example, a husband consistently fails to provide material support to his wife, then surely the marriage is as broken as if the husband has committed adultery." Do you really believe this? What is proper material support? Do we apply 21st Century standards or early 20th Century standards to judge a husband who "consistently fails to provide material support to his wife?" A person who works in fast food service full-time can make less than the poverty level as defined in the United States. Does the spouse of such a person have grounds for divorce? I assume that you would answer no. If so, then please provide the proper amount of material support necessary. I believe there is a reason Jesus did not make such an exception, for the very reason that what I have asked you to do is impossible. Surely, you will agree that living on welfare in the United States today affords a higher standard of living than the average wage earner at the turn of the 20th century, when most lived without electricity. Also, does this apply to the wife as well? If she does not provide materially for the husband, does he have grounds for divorce?
All of us married folk, at one time or another, contemplate divorce. At those times, we search for justification, and Christians search in particular for biblical justification. I suspect you are wrong about your friends who are divorced. I suspect that most would contend that their spouse emotionally neglected them.
I hope you can see that all of these extra-biblical interpretations are leading us into a black hole. What I hoped from Christianity Today was an unconditioned apology and repudiation of the article. Your statement falls far short of those expectations.
Mr. Neff, you walk in the giant footsteps of founding editor Carl F.H. Henry. Carl Henry would never have allowed such an article to be printed in Christianity Today.

[DAVID NEFF RESPONDS]
Two quick clarifications to issues you raise.
First, regarding material support. I was not writing about standard of living. I was working with the understanding that we were talking about a husband who willfully and persistently refused to support his wife and family. Obviously, people are not held responsible for not doing that which they cannot do. So when a great economic disaster like the Dust Bowl or the Great Depression puts people out of work, they are responsible to seek work, but they are not violating a marriage vow by the sheer fact of being laid off and situationally unemployed.
Second, regarding emotional neglect. Instone-Brewer's final summary joined emotional neglect to physical neglect as a single condition ("emotional and physical neglect"). If I had read that as an "or" rather than an "and" statement, I would not have let it stand. So please don't try to parse it in terms of some kind of minimal threshold of emotional neglect. When you get the two items conjoined, it is a pretty serious violation. --DAVID NEFF

I, the critic of all things, have always been skeptical of magazines such as these. While they convey some essence of Truth and sometimes attempt to stay within the spirit of The Word, they seem to often make too many attempts to sell their product. While they should try to sell their product, it shouldn't get to the point of molding the Bible to fit into their reader's secular worldview and conflicting religious beliefs.

In a psychology course I once had a teacher told me the reason that most people seek therapy...it isn't necessarily to fix their problem, it's so that they may be better at their problem. I look at people who pick up this magazine in wal-mart on their way out in the same light, part of them is hoping that someone tells them it's okay to do what they do, even though they know it isn't - and that's just what you've done. Hopefully your readers attempt to seek the Truth in scripture and other readings before they blindly follow a man who is obviously making a great attempt to be liked a popular (someone who studies this will definitely know better, so I'm fairly certain this isn't a case of the blind leading the blind.

---

Note: the reason that I went in this direction is because it's rather easy to find the Truth of scripture in regard to this matter written by much greater minds than I.

David,

The last point in Instone-Brewer's list of acceptable reasons for divorce is also joined by an "and" -- "abandonment and abuse." Following your reasoning above about "emotional and physical neglect," which you said referred to the two conjoined and not just to emotional neglect alone as a legitimate reason for divorce, is abuse alone therefore not an acceptable reason for divorce? Is it only okay for a woman to leave her husband if he not only beats her but also leaves home for weeks or months at a time, or forever?

I suspect you were being disingenuous above, knowing full well that just as Instone-Brewer meant "abandonment and abuse" as two legitimate and separate reasons for divorce, so too he meant "emotional and physical neglect" as two legitimate and separate reasons for divorce. Perhaps you feel uncomfortable with claims of emotional neglect as an easy out from marriage, and for good reason. But Instone-Brewer's argument definitely left that door open. To argue otherwise is misleading.

I agree with David. The people who read the article are not stupid. The term "emotional and physical neglect" continues to be nonspecific - almost anything fits into this category at some point or another. In fact, the original article was startling in its non-specificity. In addition, if you were "working with the understanding that we were talking about a husband who willfully and persistently refused to support his wife and family," then why didn't the original article state that? Does this apply only to the husband or also to the wife? I don't think you even came close to responding to David's many concerns. And specifically where in the phrase "except for adultery" does emotional and physical neglect come in? I'm trying not to "parse" here, but am I expected to read between the lines? What what about "for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health"? That covers a lot of territory including, I think, "emotional and physical neglect." While I am one who is inclined to show mercy to men or women who are continually being battered by their spouses, or who have spouses whose activities make it likely that they will end up either dead or in jail, those are extreme cases. I have a sister who, if she doesn't fear for her life, should. On the other hand, there is a couple at my church who is "praying about" whether they should divorce because they make better friends than spouses. Although you deny it, both the article and your "clarification" give carte blanche to anyone who is having a bad day or is angry with their spouse and is looking for some biblical justification to throw the old one away and get a new one. I suggest you reread both the article and your response to see why so many people are upset with the article. Having said all that, I love Christianity Today, and I won't divorce you, even though I am feeling a little ticked off right now.

I truly appreciated the article and David Neff's response. Growing up in the era of no-fault divorce (I'm under 30 years), I've certainly seen the effect of divorce on my friends. However, I've also seen an over-reaction towards divorce by churches. I sat under many a sermon where the only statement regarding divorce is "I hate divorce" from Malachi 2:16. By not teaching the full Biblical perspective on divorce (cited in this article), I've also seen (in my case) women suffer through physical abuse, emotional neglect (a husband who goes to work, goes to the TV room, expects dinner brought to him and goes to bed without one word spoken to his wife or kids for years), physical neglect (a husband who refuses to work outside the home and inside the home and just watches TV all day for years), and marital right neglect (a husband who refuses to have sex with his wife for years and instead views pornography day in and day out for years). All of these husbands go to church. All of these wives have tried to seek pastoral counseling with their husbands. Yet, each of these wives has only heard "God hates divorce." Their children have a seriously flawed view of marriage, and in some cases have left Christianity because they believe God is sadistic to force a woman to continue to be married in a situation of abuse or serious neglect. Wouldn't it be better for these husbands to be treated as Paul advocates in 1 Corinthians 5, to be treated as pagan and to allow the Holy Spirit to regenerate their lives? I appreciate CT's willingness to publish an article on a proper Biblical perspective.

I agree that the article by David Instoen-Brewer does seem to be a little weak.

Likewise David Neffs defense of the phrasing of how to use "and" vs. "or" is equally weak.

David B. states clearly in the article that the marriage certificate of divorce does allow for divorce in the case of emotional "or" physical neglect...as shown in the following quote from the article:

"He didn't say that neglect of these rights was the basis of divorce because he didn't need to—it was stated on the marriage certificate. Anyone who was neglected, in terms of emotional support or physical support, could legally claim a divorce."

On the whole I like the article, but it needs some tightening up, it is just a little to loose I think!

Part of the difficulty in approaching the topic, especially as done in this article, is the individualism of our culture. We make all of our decisions based on our own ideas of right/wrong. The article is loose enough that anyone "doing what is right in their own eyes" can easily justify divorce, simply because standards like "emotional neglect" are so subjective. But shouldn't those decisions really be made in the context of a church, with pastors or elders involved? That would at least allow some objectivity to be included in the process. I understand that in the U.S. we are so afraid of controlling leaders, and so protective of our independence, that we probably wouldn't go that way--but that seems to me like the missing ingredient in the discussion. I don't see Christians in New Testament times operating as independently as we do today.

I thought D I=-B's artcile was pretty good. Thanks for publishing it.

Its sad to see some prominent evangelical leaders who should no better taking a position against it that betrays their ability to charitably read someone. That's the real tragedy.

What a suspicious world we are in. The love of many grows cold, and not just in marriages.
http://mysite.verizon.net/~vze2tmhh/

I was shocked to see CT presenting Instone-Brewer's view without providing counterpoints by another scholar. This is even more shocking since this view is still a minority view in the Church. The reaction of readers would have been much more moderate if CT had presented both sides instead of dogmatically deciding that there is only one way to look at the issue (as if the traditional view does not have capable and equally learned defenders). Even David Neff's clarifications does not address the main issue and the seemingly new editorial line that CT is taking on this issue. The outrage of many readers also stems from the misuse (not just the use which has it legitimate place) of extra biblical materials in order to negate the plain sense (from a historical grammatical perspective) of the text.
What was even worse was take Instone-Brewer focused so much on his highly speculative reconstruction of the background and setting of the text that he forgot to do the more important thing: deal with the text and not just with the parts that bolster his argument. Yes, going though divorce need to be treated with love and compassion but the biblical truth needs to be upheld and cannot be sacrificed in order to accommodate a modern audience who has de-valuated the institution of marriage and seeks teachers that will justify their desire to opt out of a commitment they made for better or for worse. This does not mean that horrible and disheartening situations do not exist, but we need to trust God and His word and have faith that He knows best even though what He is asking us to do is not pleasant and does not seem fair. I have no doubt that Instone-Brewer is sincere and well intentioned but that does not make him less wrong and his teaching less dangerous and harmful to the Church. I understand that those are harsh words but this is no mere academic discussion, a major doctrine of the faith is at stake with life long repercussions.

David Neff's point that extrabiblical sources have to be taken into account for a proper understanding of the Bible is, I think, absolutely correct. Those who claim that they can get by with only the Bible and "common sense" neglect the possibility that their own common sense may not be identical to that of the original author or his audience. In fact, since common sense is necessarily shaped by surrounding culture, reliance on common sense alone in interpreting scripture is just a way of relying on unknown, amorphous extrabiblical sources without serious critical examination. How much better and more faithful to listen to the voices in the Bible with as much sensitivity to the original contexts as possible!

All of this is not to suggest that every reader of the Bible needs to be able to interact at a deep level with early rabbinic scholarship, but the church should certainly attempt to do so. I am grateful for Instone-Brewer's attempt to ground our discussion of divorce in a sympathetic understanding of the context of the Biblical conversation. It will take me some time and study to see if I ultimately agree with him, but he has certainly opened up a new way for me to think about Jesus' statements about divorce. I hope that, rather than dismissing his argument because the conclusions do not match their own, Instone-Brewer's readers can see more clearly the textual and contextual basis on which future discussion needs to build.

Isn't it called the HISTORICAL grammatical method? I would think that would include taking account of actual debates using particular phrases current in the historical period in view.

Neglect is not a vacuous term. For child abuse it can include the following

"Neglect also occurs if a parent (or person legally responsible) fails to provide a minimum level of care—food, water, clothing, housing, medical and dental care, education and adequate guardianship—to a point at which the child’s health and welfare are compromised.
Examples:
- A parent who is homeless refuses to accept emergency housing and is sleeping under
a bridge with his or her child in the winter
- A parent doesn’t provide food, and the child is underweight and listless
- A child’s educational progress is impaired because the parent is aware that the child is
missing school and fails to do anything about it
- A child has painful tooth decay and the parent does not seek dental care
- A preschool child is left home alone by the parent"

Why would Christianity Today publish an article condoning any type of divorce? Its so rampant in society, both Christian and secular. I can't understand why you'd try to prop up arguments for something that's so devastating to our witness. When a good portion of Christian marriages have fallen apart, and our witness is in shambles, I would hope that CT would do more to bring Christians back to God's desire for strong marriages than widen the legitimacy of an act that's crippling Christian families. Pretty dissapointed . . .

jonathan:

equally devastating to our witness is the false impression many have that if you become a Christian, you must remain married no matter what, that you must suffer through an abusive, adulterous, miserable marriage, because that is what "good" Christians do. however, as has been pointed out already, scripture allows for divorce in certain circumstances. are you going to tell my mother that she should have stayed with my father, who lied about his faith in Christ to win her and then promptly became emotionally and physically neglectful and adulterous when marriage became inconvenient to him, that she should have stayed with him for the sake of her witness? that this would somehow have stregnthened the church? you seem to be assuming that all Christian marriages that have fallen apart have done so for insupportable reasons (ie. "it just didn't work out").

Clearly God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). And Jesus doesn't just mention once that divorce is for situations with adultery, he says it in Matthew 5 as well. Being a layman and taking the words at their face value, it seems pretty clear that adultery is the only acceptable circumstance.

At the same time, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which Jesus would deny a woman suffering physical abuse at the hands of her husband. Similarly, we know that emotional abuse can be as violent as physical. So would He also deny that person?

Every marriage is a witness of Jesus's love for the church and the church's submission to his authority (Ephesians 5). Is an abusive marriage the kind of witness Jesus wants?

While I'm not completely comfortable with Dr. Instone-Brewer's extra-biblical interpretation of Jesus teaching, I do struggle to understand how God would want broken marriages to continue as a witness about his love for us....

Ultimately there is comfort in taking Jesus at his word and applying a very black and white view of when divorce is allowable. Perhaps its my post-modern mind telling me I can't ultimately know the answer, but I do wonder if there isn't some merit to Dr. Instone-Brewer's interpretation of Jesus's teaching in light Ephesians 5.

David, your response seems to suggest that one of the reasons for publishing Brewer's article without a counterpoint was to assuage all those readers who previously sent negative opinions about a prior article. Wish we could put words into Jesus' mouth Himself (for that is what Brewer does) every time His peers attacked and ridiculed Him. In fact, the disciples found Jesus' comments so harsh, they said, "Its better then not to marry". What is even worse, you further justify Brewer by appealing to the Reformers. These individuals themselves could not agree about what Jesus said or didn't say and have left us a legacy of conflicting opinions and divisions since then. Maybe you can justify war and persecution of Christians who disagree with you as well by appealing to the Reformers? Lastly you assume that the Rabbinic context Brewer talks about is novel and provides a fresh understanding of the text. Perhaps it is novel to many of your readers, but as far as I am aware the Church has been well aware of this context for 2000 years now...Have your readers read the early church fathers? As an evangelical, I am deeply disturbed by this current trend at CT. Dismiss or re-interpret Jesus when you don't like Him. I understand violent, abusive relationships (my wife's mother was in a pretty bad one) and our human weaknesses. But I don't think the solution is adapting Jesus to our culture, rather letting Jesus change the way we think and behave and transforming our culture! I refer you to Jesus in Mt 5 (paraphrase): "I have not come to abolish the law but fulfill it...You have heard..Do not murder..I tell you...whoever is angry is in danger of hell fire; you have heard...do not commit adultery...I tell you...whoever LOOKS at a woman LUSTFULLY commits adultery; you have heard...whoever divorces his wife must give her a certificate...I tell you...whoever divorces his wife and marries another except for marital unfaithfulness commits adultery" Jesus fulfills the Law by setting a higher standard! Let the reader decide...Moreover perhaps its better to heed this Pastor "Not many of us should presume to be teachers...because we who teach will be judged more strictly" (James 3:1). By the way Martin Luther the Reformer didn't think Pastor James words were worthy enough to be included in the canon of Scripture! Thanks for your response...

Thank you for the sensitive and thoughtful article about divorce. Though I was not aware of it until reading the article, I have been tending toward being judgmental in my thinking about the subject. The article was a great help to me, as are so many CT pieces.

Dear Mr. Neff,
Several readers have already ably pointed out that the words of Jesus, taken in the most clearly literal sense, prohibit divorce for anything other than sexual sin. Why Christianity Today would try to squirm around such direct and obvious teaching is beyond me. Yet I must voice what I am sure my fellow critics also feel deeply: Christianity Today must go beyond this and call for obedience to all Biblical instruction that’s been so conveniently explained away.
Rebuke those who do not have railings around their roofs, who pick up dropped vegetables in their gardens and who harvest from the corners, and who trim their beards. (Deut. 22:8; Lev. 19:9; Lev. 19:21) Soundly rebuff those who pray outside of their inner rooms, and those who fail to oil their heads when they fast (Mt. 6:6; 6:17). Censure those who haven’t greeted each other with kisses as this command is repeated five times in the New Testament (Rom. 16:16, 1 Cor. 16:20, etc.).
Condemn those who do not give in response to every financial request they get (Luke 6:30).Castigate the men of the church because none of them have plucked out their eyes or cut off other offending parts (Mk. 9:47; Mt. 5:29; Mt. 18:9), and be clear that most men will not inherit the kingdom of God because they’ve looked on women with desire and this is adultery (Mt. 5:28) and I Cor. 6:9 says that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom.
The time for wishy-washy interpretation of the Bible is past; let us reject the notion that historical context might help us understand what the Scriptures mean; let us shun the notion that writers of Scripture used hyperbole and other figures of speech; let us instead take every Scripture in its most literal way, for only then can we possibly see the grace of Christ worked out in our generation.

I applaud the attempt to place Jesus' words in their historical, cultural, and religious context. But for many readers, the recognition that the Bible is a text that requires input from linguistic and historical experts for its interpretation will be too much for them to take. For many readers, the view they presuppose is that all one needs to do is "take the Bible literally" and "not compromise".

Why are so many Christians resistant to aspects of Biblical interpretation that are, to anyone well informed on the subject, quite obviously necessary? It is not simply that the need to depend on experts can seem antithetical to the Protestant emphasis on individual interpretation. For many Christians, it is just too painful to acknowledge that some of the clearest teachings of Jesus, "Go, sell all you have and give to the poor" and "love your enemies" are just "too hard" and that we aren't following them as we should. Rather than acknowledge their shortcomings, some try to shift the focus onto other issues, such as divorce, abortion, and intelligent design.

The issue is not about "taking Scripture in its most literal way". Not only do self-proclaimed "Biblical literalists" not do that, but to do so would be to flatten the metaphorical richness of Scripture, and would be far from a faithful reading thereof. Nor is the key issue whether this particular article provides the most persuasive interpretation of Jesus' teaching on divorce. The underlying issue is how many Christians in our generation are finally mature enough in their faith to study the Bible in a serious academic way and actually begin to understand it at something beyond a superficial level.

Eric, you are using a straw man argument to argue against the traditional position on divorce. You misrepresented the traditional view as inconsistent wooden literalism that does not take into account the historical context (including extra biblical material) and figures of speech. This could not be farther from the truth. the examples you gave ignore the context in which they were given and their very purpose. the argument against Instone-Brewer's view is that it provides a highly speculative reconstruction of the context of the passage that overrides the plain sense of the text and cannot be justified through historical grammatical exegesis. No one denies the existence of figures of speech and the need to take into account the historical context and relevant extra biblical material. What is argued is that Instone-Brewer's view does not fit the more grammatical meaning of the passage (a foundation more certain that a speculative reconstruction of what was going on behind the scenes). Instone-Brewer's view cannot explain the reaction of the disciples after hearing Jesus' statement : Matthew 19:10 "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." It seems that they did not get the hyperbole and were not aware of the special context that Instone-Brewer proposes. They had a very radical understanding of Jesus' prohibition Even worse, Jesus Himself did not correct their "misinterpretation" but rather affirmed it that stating that Matthew 19:11 "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given." In view of the above, the clear textual clues contained in the passage must take precedence over a speculation reconstruction of what might or might not have been the background of the conversation. Keener, a scholar well verse in first century background (Matthew, 466) argues that most of Jesus' audience might have been unfamiliar with the debate between the Hillelites and the Shammmaites. This casts doubt on the redefinition of the "without/no cause divorce" If the reconstruction is doubtful and far from making unanimity among scholars, why should one allow it to override the textual context and plain and historical meaning of the text? Instone-Brewer's argument can be defeated on historical, grammatical and contextual grounds. Despite what you seem to imply, holding to the traditional view is not a sign that one holds to wooden literalism or ignore basic hermeneutical principles, "au contraire", the traditional view takes into account all the available evidence while prioritizing what the text actually says. Instead of proposing what are in the end weak counter examples, show us how you deal with the text itself (and the whole text) in context.

what if a man wakjs out for no reason

What I see missing in nearly every posting regarding this issue, particularly David Neff's, is any reference whatsoever to the glory of God and what is at stake for HIS NAME'S SAKE. Nearly every negative outcome of divorce, and nearly every argument on either side of the coin, seems to begin and end out of a man-centered reference point, as if it is all about us and our comfort in this life and our dreams and our inconvenience and our being wronged, and on and on and on. For example, David Neff summed up his comments above with the following:

"We are seriously concerned about the effects of no-fault divorce in our society and the devastating impact it has on the economic and emotional lives of children."

Yes, divorce does have a serious impact on the economic and emotional lives of children (I know all too well as someone whose parents divorced when I was a teenager), but a million times greater than the possible economic setback or emotional scars that divorce can bring upon children is the outrageous way that divorce within the Christian community tramples the glory of God and belittles his sovereignty. Nowhere does David Neff (or most anyone else on this posting site) write of the devastating impact of divorce on the glory of our awesome, glorious, sin-bearing, covenant-keeping God. We should all fall on our face tonight before our holy God and not dare to speak another careless word on this issue. There are a lot of smart people on these postings getting all worked up sharing their views, but let us remember that we are but a vapor and we should tread very lightly as we seek to speak for our Lord Jesus Christ.

Dear Mr. Neff:

I am concern that the article does not present the other side of the coin in an already sensitive topic within the church. What does a church do when a person divorces? Are they able to fill the various open positions within the church? These are pressing questions which need exegetical and theological application. I am afraid that immature believers will read this article and feel persuaded to divorce one's spouse because of persistent arguments or difficulty is relating to one another. I believe that there needs to be other side of the coin presented to the Christian community. We must be committed to the Scripture as our sole guide for faith and practice, especially when dealing with the marriage covenant as instituted by God (Ephesians 5; Matthew 19).

A Concern Teacher of the Word,
Joel Badal

I couldn't agree more with the post written by Helen Oct. 22. What is at stake in divorce, as well as all issues Christians face, is the glory of God. God's glory is infinitely more important and precious than our own comfort and self-righteous justification for anything. In everything we do, think, say, and consider we should ultimately ponder the glory of God and focus and/or realign our actions, thoughts, speech, and decisions on God's purpose for even creating this world; namely, His glory. God bless you all and may His glory shine through.

Who cares what CT says? It has sucked for a long time. Read something good like Slate.com.

Mr. Neff:

why not hold a debate, or a forum, and let the facts stand out for themselves.

Their are far too many opinions and not enough scriptures with scriptures countering the false teachings.

To the rest, please consider this and if you have a reply I for one would love to see it. I have yet to this date been able to find a scriptural rebuttal supporting no divorce that will stand up to this simple doctrinal truth.

GOD DOES NOT HOLD ONE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE FREE MORAL CHOICE of OTHERS TO SIN; I.E. BREAK THEIR MARRIAGE COVENANT CONTRACT.

God gave us minds and wills!!! To attempt to hold one accountable for the other is to say that I have control over your mind and will and can make you do, etc, etc,etc.
A “No Divorce” position does just this while ignoring the whole context of the scripture in light of the position.

Instone Brewer is right in his interpretation. The complete puzzle MUST completely fit together to be God's intention. God does not author confusion nor does he lie.. Somebody is wrong here somewhere!!!

It's the Hard-Hearted thats the problem

Earlier this year John Piper preached a series of 13 messages on marriage that reached deep into my heart with more awe and wonder for God on this subject than I have ever had before. The resolve and perspective his "high view" of marriage has been transforming for me.

When I saw the cover for CT this month, I was extremely curious to know what would be written. Would it further encourage me? Would it bring more awe and wonder? Sadly, I came away with the "low view" of marriage that almost led me to walk away from my own marriage 3 years ago.

Our marriage is to reflect Christ and His bride, the church, not the whims of our society. The most amazing thing Piper said in his messages was this, " To the degree that John Piper is not amazed by his salvation, Noel (his wife) pays!" Wrap your mind around that for awile and see if it doesn't change your thinking about marriage.

While I initially struggled with Instone Brewer's Abuse, abandonment, and neglect passage. If followed in light of the scriptures instruction, dwell at peace with brethren, resolve ought with brethren, speak truth with love, bear one another's burdens, I see no disharmony. But when viewed in light of a professed believer failing to support his family, provide food, clothing and shelter to his or her own offspring, and then when looking at pure physical abuse to the point of potential death, disability, mutation. I see absolutely no discrepancy at all.

Their is a great difference in being a martyr for Christ versus being a martyr for the traditions of men. Remaining in that environment and raising children within it is not healthy but enabling sick behavior and passing it on to the next generation.

I.E. Spousal abuse and child abuse , they are often LEARNED BEHAVIORS. They impact families for generations upon generations.

To say GOD ordained this to occur and be permitted to continue is nothing short of apathy at its worse.

Should they both or the perpetrator claim to be believers, It is a Church Discipline Issue.
Enough Said.

Are we in danger of confusing 'allowed' and what God's will is? Jesus and Moses made it clear that the Old Testament laws on divorce were because of Israel's hardness of heart. The Malachi passage says that God 'hates divorce'. It seems very clear to me that God's will is that divorce never happens. Full Stop.

However, what is allowed is a slightly different matter. We are called to follow God and to match up perfectly to His will. But show me one person who actually manages this in anything. We all screw up, but fortunately we are covered by Jesus' blood.

From all I can see, divorce is definitely a sin, including on the grounds of adultery, as it is not God's perfect will. However, we as the body of Christ need to be aware that we live in a fallen world. We should never say that divorce is 'the right route', as it is never God's perfect will. However, when it happens, we need to act with grace. Our response is "No, you shouldn't get divorced, but if you do, we will still love you!"

Therefore, the issue of 'allowed' or 'permissible' actually ends up with Paul's comment of "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful". It becomes a considerations of actually, what is the best route forward. I do believe that the best route will never be divorce, however, that is from an abstract and detached point of view. I pray that people in the actual situation have the faith that God's will in continuing marriage is the best. But if they don't, recognising that we are human. Their sin in lack of faith that God's perfect will is accomplished without divorce is no worse than the sin of people who don't follow what God has said because they don't have the faith that God will sort out circumstances that don't match up to the call. They are both serious, as both of them are a lack of faith in God's perfect will, but they have both been dealt with on the cross.

Now I am young (20) and don't have much experience with being in situations, but I have heard a number of stories of people who have continued in horrific marriages, physical and emotional abuse and neglect and unfaithfulness, but after 20 years of faithfulness God has broken the heart of the partner and brought them to Christ and restoring the marriage. I am in no doubt that it was a very dark time with nothing visible showing that God's will is going to be accomplished, but that is just like Paul in prison and many other Christians through history under persecution. There is no visible hope, but because of faith in God, the heroes of our faith have stood through and seen God accomplish His perfect will.

Maybe you all disagree with me and you probably all have much more experience, but I am worried by the trend in the church to favour justifying/get out clauses rather than recognising sin but dealing with it by grace.

In this specific case, our model for marriage is Christ and the church. We have done way worse to Christ than any parter could do to the other in a human marriage and we will continue to do so time and time again. Christ took all that crap to the cross and dealt with it. If we are to match up to this model of marriage, surely that must also be our aim, to bear all sins and to forgive, continuing in love. But as I said, we will never manage to match up completely to Christ. Although our aim must be to do so, we must recognise that we will fall short and we must learn how to deal with that in grace and love, again taking our example from Christ. As Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery, can we not say to the couple who have got divorced, "your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more."

If marriage is mainly here to show off the gospel and how great God is to his bride and then her response back to him. I tend to lean more towards Piper. It only makes sense. Christ will never ever under any circumstance divorce his bride, and he will always keep her to the end no matter what she does to him. Now she may prove herself to not be a part of his true bride, thus making a mockery of her faith in some situations. Matthew 7:22 passage would sum that up. But his true bride whom he has a covenant with he keeps. So if we let divorce into our marriage what does that say about God and his covenant with his Bride to the world?? It is a question I pose to CT and Instone and would love to hear what both CT and Mr. Brewer would have to say about it. So I wait.

I was married to a man for almost 8 years. For the latter years of our marriage he was addicted to pornography. He was emotionally abusive. He lied to me about his faith and being a Christian before we were married. I tried to convince him to go to counseling to help repair the problems in our marriage. I myself went to counseling. I considered divorce, but ultimately concluded that since God "hates divorce," I should remain in the marriage and forgive my husband for his failings. However, my husband decided that he no longer wanted to be married. He "just wasn't happy anymore." So, we divorced. I literally could not stay married to a man who refused to be married to me. He did not need my consent to obtain a divorce. So now all you Judgy McJudgepants's out there look down on me for being divorced. It's a stigma that the church perpetuates regardless of the circumstances of the divorce - whether the divorce was for adultery, abuse, or "any cause." Shame on all of you who judge people for getting divorced. Even though I know that my divorce was justified, I cannot escape the judgment of those who call themselves Christians.

And for those of you who insist on only literal interpretations of the Bible, I submit that a vast majority of married people fit into what many consider the only acceptable grounds for divorce - adultery. Since the Bible says adultery is committed if a man even LOOKS at another woman with lust, most married men are guilty of such a sin. Is it then OK for all the married women out there divorce their husbands for lusting after another woman? Be wary of interpreting the Bible literally when it suits you and not when it doesn't.

Moreover, to keep people from serving in positions in the church because of a divorce is silly. Even if a person is divorced without a good reason, doesn't Jesus offer that person grace? And in turn, must not we do the same? Since all sins are considered equal in God's eyes (i.e., any sin, regardless of what it is, results in total separation from Christ), unless any of you out there are perfect, no one is fit to serve in the church without grace. Christ used whores, drunks, tax collectors, and the like to serve his purpose. Cannot a divorcee also be used for God's glory?

Finally, I have stuggled since my divorce with the question as to whether it would be right to remarry someday. Will I be committing adultery if I marry another? Even though I did not have a choice in getting divorced? Even though my husband (allegedly) never physically had sex with another woman (is cyber-sex "adultery")? Is it God's will that I remain single forever because of the actions of my former spouse? I don't know. I don't think so. But be advised, the issue of divorce and remarriage is not so black and white as many of you want it to be. So stop judging!!!!

To CB,

Since it seems that your ex husband was not a Christian and initiated the divorce, there should be no stigma since it is biblical to let him go under such circumstances.

1 corinthians 7:12-16

2? But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. ?13? And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. ?14? For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise ?k?your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. ?15? But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us ?to peace. ?16? For how do you know, O wife, whether you will ??save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

The New King James Version. 1996, c1982 (1 Co 7:12). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

To Karen

I for one do not judge you, and thank you from the bottom of my heart for sharing with us your story, NOT all churches are as you describe, please do not let the self righteous hinder your seeking to worship our savior. Even the pharisees when confronted by Jesus stated they "did not need instructions" Our savior will judge them in due time, in the meanwhile, pray for them.

As I have posted in other postings on this site, legalism and the worship of the letter of the Law kills, It kills all hope, faith, joy, and many other fruits of the spirit.

I too must ask for forgivness for the same crime of worshipping the letter of the law and hardheartedness from my past when i face the judgment day.

Blessings

To Karen

I for one do not judge you, and thank you from the bottom of my heart for sharing with us your story, NOT all churches are as you describe, please do not let the self righteous hinder your seeking to worship our savior. Even the pharisees when confronted by Jesus stated they "did not need instructions" Our savior will judge them in due time, in the meanwhile, pray for them.

As I have posted in other postings on this site, legalism and the worship of the letter of the Law kills, It kills all hope, faith, joy, and many other fruits of the spirit.

I too must ask for forgivness for the same crime of worshipping the letter of the law and hardheartedness from my past when i face the judgment day.

Blessings

Andrew
You write a very insightfull and wise statement, might i make a observation.
What I have discerned from Dr. Brewers writings is not the seeking of excusing, justifying, and get out clauses, but rather the exposition of the scriptures protection of the innocent in the case of a negligent and especially a hardhearted spouce.
When one is married, one makes promises, vows, signs a contract. If one is negligent in fulfilling that contract, actually Love = marital rights, Honor = clothe, Cherish = feed. ( please look up Dr. Brewers history on the wedding vows, it is quite informative and historical too)
The proper ability to seek divorce is not residing with the hardhearted but rather with the faithful in the marriage. They are upholding their contract, while the errant partner is not. Brewer provides historical documents as does other early church fathers into the same practice done then as today,
Divorce by desertion, a spouse leaves, never divorces, leaves spouse to defend for self. Doesn’t look like fulfilling vows to me.
Now sin is of no consequence to the lost, they are doomed already, but it is of great consequence to the believer, and believe me even after a while, love can be killed by the behavior of a spouce, fear and love does not co exist, especially perfect Love ( see John 4;18 ) desertion was a means to escape repayment of the dowery to the wife's family, as is desertion today is a way to escape payment of child support or alimony.
I too have wrestled with this for some 25+ years, and since i was 18, for i dated a divorced lady at the time. Just a little insight, now i am 46.
Andrew my brother, you are not far from the kingdom of heaven in your understanding, press on in your faith my young brother.

P.S. Look up and unpack Matthew 1;19 it is worth your time and understanding.

cb
Im sorry to inform you that God did divorced Israel, and since God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are like minded I might err to say Jesus is capable of the same for some of the same reasons.

Israel is the wife of Jehovah, whereas the Church is the Bride of Christ, a unconsummated bride might I add. Should you apply O.T. law to the case, he would be just in divorcing her for infidelity should it occur.

Let me give you a scriptural example, look at 1 Corinthians 5, the son involved in improper relations with his mother, what does it say in verse 5, this child’s reward might be weeping wailing and gnashing of teeth but yet still saved from hell. Is he to be invited to the wedding? ? ?
Just look at Matthew 25:5, I think it is a perquisite that the Bride be able to hear and recognize the Bridegrooms Voice to make the wedding.
"Christ will never ever under any circumstance divorce his bride, and he will always keep her to the end no matter what she does to him"
This might be a false statement? although I will agree with the Matthew 7:22 passage being relevant here.
God does not bless those whom claim him and are not faithful, rather his loving and chastising discipline is upon them, even to the point of turning over their flesh to Satan to be destroyed whereby their souls may be saved.

Their appears to be a obligation to fulfill a contract present here in all of the verses, with dire consequences if not fulfilled

Karen, if you read this again, thanks for your post. Especially these two paragraphs:

"And for those of you who insist on only literal interpretations of the Bible, I submit that a vast majority of married people fit into what many consider the only acceptable grounds for divorce - adultery. Since the Bible says adultery is committed if a man even LOOKS at another woman with lust, most married men are guilty of such a sin. Is it then OK for all the married women out there divorce their husbands for lusting after another woman? Be wary of interpreting the Bible literally when it suits you and not when it doesn't.

Moreover, to keep people from serving in positions in the church because of a divorce is silly. Even if a person is divorced without a good reason, doesn't Jesus offer that person grace? And in turn, must not we do the same? Since all sins are considered equal in God's eyes (i.e., any sin, regardless of what it is, results in total separation from Christ), unless any of you out there are perfect, no one is fit to serve in the church without grace. Christ used whores, drunks, tax collectors, and the like to serve his purpose. Cannot a divorcee also be used for God's glory?"

I fully agree that a literal interpretation of the Bible does have huge consequences. I think this is almost what I was getting at. Actually, if we look the level we are to match up to, we all constantly break both the command of God and, if we are marriage, our marriage vows. That is why grace is of such essential importance.

The issue of keeping people from serving in church positions is a tricky one. I am definitely not saying this of you; I do not know you at all. However, how we conduct our personal lives shows who we are and how we will be in ministry. The Biblical principle in 1 Timothy 3:12 of a deacon ‘managing their children and their own households well’ is an important one. If someone cannot manage their own family, how can they manage God’s family? Again I say, I am not saying this applies to you Karen (in fact, from what you’ve said the circumstances of your divorce likely discount you entirely from this comment), but we must make sure that the people leading the church can lead the church. Having said that, as Karen rightly said, the church is made up of broken screw-ups and the tricky thing is to find the balance. If it were only affecting me, I would give 100% grace. However, there is more than just me at stake. There is the wider body of the church. I’ve heard of a pastor in the New Frontiers International church considering stepping down from leadership when his son was going off the rails. Now I am far from sure that it would have been right or necessary for him to step down, but there is something in that sentiment that really resounds in me and gives me a great respect for the guy.

Decree.Info – in response to:

“What I have discerned from Dr. Brewers writings is not the seeking of excusing, justifying, and get out clauses, but rather the exposition of the scriptures protection of the innocent in the case of a negligent and especially a hardhearted spouce.”

Surely God’s protection of the innocent is Himself, not an ‘out’ from a commitment. I understand what you mean, but I think this is the point I was making previously about faith. If we truly believe that God’s will and standards are the best for our lives, we would trust that continuing to put our all into restoring a broken marriage would be the best thing we can possibly do, even if it doesn’t look like it. Again, if we lack the faith to pursue that, fine, Jesus’ blood is over us and we are no different to every other Christian in the entire world and the entirety of history. All have had moments of, if not lives ridden with, lack of faith. We (the wider church) do all we can to help that person pick themselves up and continue to walk with Jesus, serving and lifting up His name, acting in all love.

Also your comment:

“Im sorry to inform you that God did divorced Israel, and since God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are like minded I might err to say Jesus is capable of the same for some of the same reasons.”

I think I disagree with that. If God did divorce Israel, that would be cataclysmic to His faithfulness. He promised that they would be a people of His name, He would be their God and they would be His people. Even though Israel broke their covenant time and time again, it would still be a lack of faithfulness on God’s part for Him not to uphold His part. All throughout the history of Israel, His promise was that He would be their God and salvation. If they rejected Him, they would end up in captivity. If they repented, God would come and save them and bring them back. That doesn’t sound like God had divorced Israel. That sounds like Israel left home, God giving them over into their own depravity, but sitting at the window awaiting their return home, accepting them with loving arms.

If you want a perfect example of this, look at Hosea! God told Hosea to take a wife of whoredom and unfaithfulness, as that was a picture of God and Israel. Yet throughout, never once did God say to Hosea ‘ok, it’s gone far enough, divorce her’. Hosea had, according to the law, the right to divorce her time and time again. When it was then applied to Israel and God, it ends with the magnificent passage in Hosea 14 where Hosea pleads with Israel to return to the Lord God and receive God’s promises once again. That is far from God divorcing Israel.

So throughout the Old Testament we can see that God never broke His covenant with Israel, despite their adultery, idolatry, continual rejections and neglect. It was never a question, God would always fulfil His part of the covenant, regardless of Israel’s whoredom. That is a testament to the character of God, to His faithfulness. If He ‘divorced’ Israel at any point, that would show not only that God didn’t remain faithful, but that also He failed with His people. According to 1 Timothy 3, He’d be ruled out from leading the church :P So the question is what about now? Is God still faithful to Israel? I am convinced that the answer is a resounding YES!!

So where do I get that from? Romans 9… Romans 8 ends with a triumphant declaration of God’s faithfulness and how He will accomplish all good for His people. Paul then says that the Jews (God’s people?) have lost it and are perishing. The next thing Paul says is “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel”. It is imperative to Paul that God’s word has not failed, as if it had failed with Israel, then we have no founding for all the promises in Romans 8, no founding for our salvation.

Paul deals with the issue of who Israel are. Actually, Israel are the “children of the promise”. Israel are God’s elect. So has God ‘divorced’ Israel? No, His covenant still stands with the true Israel, the children of the promise, God’s elect.

Likewise, I think there is a danger of confusing who is a Christian. Christians are the children of the promise, not those who go to church. You make the comment that God does not bless those who claim Him but are not faithful. But actually, are they the children of the promise? It’s one thing to say “I’m saved by the blood”, but actually, our call to is to confess with our mouth and believe in our hearts. As James clearly said, faith without works is dead, as faith without works isn’t truly in the heart. As Jesus said, “Those who love me will obey me”.

As I said previously, I’ve not been in these situations, but I kind of feel like this would be a situation where conscience would be applied. As I said, Paul said that “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful.” In Romans 8 Paul talks along similar lines with regards to food. He makes the comment that actually, there is nothing wrong with eating food that has been offered to idols, except if that person has weak conscience. Paul says again in Romans 2 that people who haven’t heard the law/gospel will be judge according to their conscience. There is a definite theme among especially Paul’s writing that actually there is some definite ‘conscience’ room.

Now, that doesn’t mean that everyone’s conscience will match to God’s perfect will. The way Paul uses ‘weak conscience’ shows that actually, our conscience isn’t the be all and end all. Yet even though that is the case, he still puts importance on it. I may be wrong, but the way I understand this is as follows. You can say all you want, but in the end, we are judged based on what we do. As Christians, our conscience essentially comes down to our relationship with God. If our conscience is saying something is wrong, then, if we do it, we don’t just go against ourselves, but we also go against God, as He is the one who gives us and shapes our conscience. Therefore, even if our conscience doesn’t match perfectly to God’s will, provided we are open to God speaking and moulding our conscience, to go against our conscience is to sin, as we go against what we see as right in the eyes of God.

So surely the whole point of the debate here must be to allow God to shape our conscience and bring us in line with His heart, not to make a set of rules. Rules never get us anywhere. Who are we to say ‘this is what God says’. I know that I have got loads of stuff wrong. I would never trust myself to go as far as saying ‘this is definitely what God says’. I will show my reasons why I think God is saying something, but I cannot, and I don’t think anyone else can, say that my understanding is correct or infallible. We are each accountable to God of our own accord, and we must do what we feel God is saying.

Now you may say this opens us up to all sorts of liberalism and you’d be right. That is why we must take these things seriously and know our God so that when we are trying to show someone what God says, we do it in His strength, not our own. If we try and shape people’s conscience ourselves, we are doing exactly what the Pharisees did. If we allow God to do it and act in love and grace when someone does something that we don’t think is God’s will, we shall be much better off. Ultimately, that person must make account to God at judgement day, not us. We can do what we can to try and show people the right way, but to force it on them is not the right way. It is not our place to judge and if we say ever say that ‘my understanding is correct’ we immediately make a judgement on any other understanding.

Hehe… I’m sounding horribly post-modern. Nevermind!

As a Christian and a psychologist (and, yes, it is possible to be both :-), I wanted to respond to all those who have written about this article. I specialize in working with children and adults who have suffered or are currently suffering from trauma and/or abuse. I have seen women stay in marriages where they've been thrown down the stairs, kicked in the stomach while pregnant, physically tied down by their husband while other men had sex with them in front of their husband, lost all their teeth, suffered broken jaws, and a vast myriad of other atrocities. They have stayed because it is the "Christian" thing to do. I have seen women stay in marriages where their husbands regularly humiliate them in front of others, say cruel, disparaging things to them on a regular basis, treat them with absolutely not a shred of respect, and find any and every reason to find fault.

Research shows that children who watch their mother being battered by their father are twice as likely to suffer long-term distress and psychological symptoms as children who are being abused themselves. The oldest son is the most at risk for serious long-term psychological trauma. Research also shows that children prefer if their parents can stay together. However, I've worked with children whose mother divorced their father because of abuse and they have said things to me like: "I wish my mom and dad could have stayed together, but my mom couldn't stay because my dad kept hurting her. I wish my dad wouldn't have hurt my mom." They recognize the truth -- that it would be best if their parents could have lived harmoniously together, but since one parent chose to mistreat the other, the other parent had no choice but to leave.

I think a lot of this comes down to a matter of degree. Should you feel free to divorce someone who gets angry and calls you a name one time? Of course not. But what if you are called names on a daily basis? Should you stay day after day, year after year, and allow yourself to be treated disrespectfully? Dr. Dobson addresses this issue in some of his books. What I tell my clients who are suffering through intense emotional/ verbal and/or physical abuse is that they can certainly feel free to separate from their spouse and give that person time to repent. And if that person repents, they should reconcile.

The Bible is clear that we are to forgive others. Lewis Smedes, in his book "The Art Of Forgiveness" talks about the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation -- forgiveness is not holding onto any negative feelings about the other person -- reconciliation requires repentance (a u-turn, change of behavior) from the offending person.

In the case of abuse, I personally believe it is a wise choice to set limits with the offending spouse. If the abuse continues to escalate, then separation is in order. Whether or not a person actually divorces or just stays legally separated is a more dicey question. I personally believe that everyone should at least give the offending spouse a period of time to turn their behavior around -- at a minimum 6 months to a year. In my experience, usually that amount of time is enough to see whether the offending spouse is willing to take responsibility for their behavior, confess it to God and their spouse, and get help in changing their hurtful patterns, or whether the offending spouse will continue to blame everyone else for their behavioral choices and not make any significant changes in their behavior. Some of my clients have stayed legally separated. Others have divorced but not dated anyone until their ex-spouse remarries. In that way, they have given their ex-spouse a chance to turn their behavior around.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that marriage is a symbol of Jesus and His bride, the Church. Husbands are to love their wives as Jesus loves us and gave His life for us. If husbands would sacrifically love their wives with Jesus' love, many if not most of the divorces would not happen. To me, there is nothing more beautiful to see than a well-loved woman. She glows. The data shows that 90% of men who commit to marriage want to stay in the marriage. Two-thirds of all divorces are instigated by women. Most of these women would NOT divorce their spouse, if they were deeply loved by them.

Dude - you rock!

This statement is absurd:

Indeed, without following the particular forms of those rabbinic arguments, we cannot appreciate the shape of Jesus' and Paul’s arguments.

What about the indigenous missionary who has no reference other than the bible yet sees many trust Christ as their Savior. Just one example. These extra-biblical text may help but are by no means needed in order to understand and proclaim the word of God.

Shane,

That's a question I've always struggled with. But then if your approach where Jesus permits divorce only for immorality then would you apply that black and white standard to a woman being verbally or physically abused and say to her, "Well sorry but you have no other choice but to stay and trust God?"

In reply to Andrew Belcher

How can you get over 1500 characters and I cannot, its been tough explaining Things within 1500 characters???

well here goes in less than 1500 characters.

while i agree somewhat with your noble idea in the first paragraph, this statement "Surely God’s protection of the innocent is Himself, not an ‘out’ from a commitment"
This is exactly what I address in the question about “ how are we held accountable for another’s free moral choice to break their vows” The scriptures are just not there that support this within the nature of God and his modus operandi. He does not force his will upon us, if he did we could not worship him, it would be forced worship, it is our choice of will to worship him that gives him glory.

You say you disagree that God divorced Israel. Well let me give you a very harsh example of righteous judgement: Look up Matthew 12:31, how could a faithful and loving God do such a thing,, I will tell you how, RIGHTEOUSLY, that same God is Righteous as well as Just to name a few of his attributes. God wanted to destroy the whole earth in a flood, He could have done it too. He is going to destroy it by fire the next time. What does he instruct through Paul in 1Cor 5;5

About hosea, be sure to distinguish between Judah and Israel there is a difference you know. He might be sitting at home, actually maybe not, because if God is still involved he is chastizing, its when he ceases to chastize his own children that its about to get nasty for them. He will hear a cry of repentance, but not necessarily a cry for help from a unrepentant heart.

And about that passage in Timothy,,,( Hint; your missing something here ) look at the words “ Must Be” in verse 2, well this is the beginning of a phrase that is in one tense that escapes us in the English, That tense of phrase I believe goes through verse 8, but verse 2 and 3 I am positive it is contained within this tense,, the tense you could call it perfect present tense or “at the present time one perfectly meets the following”

Now note that 5th word in verse 2, Tell me who meets this for eternity and how it can be interpreted as present tense and husband of one wife as perfect tense. I tell you , this is a major misreading of the original language and a TRADITION OF MEN in its interpretation. Yet the Greek does not support it.

husband of one wife is not the question to be asking but rather were they blameless in the cause of a divorce. Ruling is one thing, DICTATORSHIP is another. Even Charles Stanley was unable to change his wife’s mind. Now you tell me that Me and God can force our wills on a spouse...!!! That ignores a man / woman free will, and even our Calvinistic brethren have to wrestle with that somewhat.

You actually present a argument by the basis of the letter of the law,
So let me give you some homework, look up Matthew 1;19, explain in light of your understanding of the law how he can be called a Just man but yet breaks the OT law?
Lets start there first and then we can address the legal issues you brought up.

Here goes trying to post over the limit on characters!!!

Decree.Info

I have been reading many people asking about abusive situations. God did give the wife a bit of freedom in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11: "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."

In other words, the wife should stay with her husband. However, if she has to leave an abusive situation, she may do so. However, she is to remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. She is not free to marry someone else.

And note that "depart" is not the same thing as divorce. It is a different Greek word. Strong's dictionary tells us it means "to place room between, that is, part; reflexively to go away: - depart, put asunder, separate." God is specifying separation, not divorce.

Regarding God and Israel's divorce: God says that he gave Israel a bill of divorce and put her away. (Jer. 3:8) Yet a few verses later, he said, "Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you." Despite their divorce, God still said that he was married to Israel.

Divorce breeds divorce. I think that part of the reason we have so many marriage problems today is that people don't take a hard enough look at their relationship when they're dating. They know that if things don't pan out and push comes to shove, they can get a divorce. Just like you can break an engagement, so they don't fully commit with their marriage. Divorce is the back door out. However, if a couple realizes that marriage is for life, they will do some serious thinking and praying. They will seek the counsel of others and make sure that there are no problems that they can foresee happening later on. And when they are married, they will do what they can to take care of any problems that do come up, rather than divorcing.

I understand the argument that we must read, and be knowledgeable about rabbinic writings to have a proper cultural understanding of the first century and consequentially of scripture, but isn't this an entirely academic argument? Hasn't the Holy Spirit been left out of this discussion? The author talks about pragmatic reasons he is thankful for his position. (His rabbinic scholarship seems to have absolved him of applying the biblically mandated higher standards applied to those in leadership). I am not a lettered academic, or great scholar, however it seems to me that 1 Corinthians 2:10-16 has something to say on the matter. To discuss in great detail an academic argument without so much as encouraging believers to seek the prompting of the Lord seems disingenuous in any context outside of academia (and foolish even within academia).
How we respond to people who have been divorced, and how we respond to divorce as an act are obviously related, but two issues do exist here. Can divorced people have fellowship in the church and be accepted? Of course they can regardless of how and why they got divorced! Could you please show me which members of your church are sinless? The divorced person is just another person who isn't perfect, imagine that. I think the bigger issue is the current status of the heart, do we just care about divorce as a label or as an act. What we need to look at in dealing with people is their heart, are they repentant? How the church deals with the act of divorce, should be separated from how the church deals with divorced persons. We need to love all sinners, we need to accept into fellowship all sinners who are repentant, we need to offer help and discipline to those who persist in sinning, we need to deal with those who have hardened hearts, and if they refuse and are unrepentant we need to continue to love them, but the relationship changes.
I encourage everyone to remember we are all sinners saved by grace. May God bless you, and may the Holy Spirit give you the wisdom to understand the Lord’s will, not only in this matter but in all the complexities of life.

David, I agree 'we [should] not punish those whose spouses persistently fail to live up to their vows.' However as one who was divorced unwillingly 7 years ago, I fail to see how Instone-Brewer's counsel is going to help the problem of divorce or the plight of divorcees. Divorcees desperately need loving and wise support, not sanction to divorce an unfaithful mate and marry another. Suffering for the sake of righteousness is not something we can always avoid in this world. It may well be the price we have to pay to be faithful and obedient to the teachings of Jesus. It has not been easy, yet can say with the support of my Christian family and God's grace I have found peace and contentment.

Again I say the missing element has been church discipline. The errant have no motivation to correct, their is no force to seek restoration save for the other spouse themselves. the church doesent get involved until its almost if not too late.

And some ask how permitting divorce can stop divorces. Saying Divorce breeds divorce. well lets look at England, the Anglican and Catholic churches dont permit divorce PERIOD regardless of the circumstances. yet they have one of the highest co habitation rates of any country, Secondly, if the innocent hase the power to divorce, it has a correcting effect on the hardhearted, because if the hardhearted is a believer, they immediatly come subject to church discipline, their sins are found out, and censure is a guaranteed thing. If they have no faith, then what is sin to them, a notion, and if the other partner is a believer, the believer is told to let them depart, that they are no longer under bondage, Bondage in the greek being a word related to Doulos, or slave.

Last of all but not least. consequences,, marriage that came to a divorce used to have consequences, now this lies at the feet of no fault divorce. legally the errant partner stood to have major legal ramifications if found guilty. Thus crimping his or her style and oftentimes extra curricular maritial life severly.

CONDEMNATION OF ALL PARTIES ONLY HURTS THE INNOCENT AND THE CHILDREN, the guilty will not sit still for condemnation and will go elsewhere. The TRUTH NEEDS TO FOLLOW THE GUILTY

want to fix the problem or at least give the old dog some teeth back,

re establish fiscal consequences for divorce and permit the innocent to file for it only, at least the sane mind in the relationship will have the keys to the car and hands on the wheel.

In the case of false accusations, believers would be subject to the church, talk about airing laundry, just the thought of the OTHERS who hide and put their best face on having to deal with such in their own lives would provide a great deterrent.

In the times of Jesus it was the repayment of the dowrey to the wifes family, unless a he could claim uncleaness or some other crime. hence why the guilty would seek a hellite priest to give the a divorce because they followed the "ANY CAUSE' and "UNCLEANESS" lines the first being a catch all, where the woman would walk into a Shamite priest who only believed in infidelity or physical uncleaness and plead her case where the Shamite Priest would FINE THE BUM EVERY DAY HE DID NOT TAKE HIS WIFE BACK INTO HIS HOME OR DID NOT RETURN THE DOWREY TO HER so she could return to her fathers house.

Brewer and others have the proof about playing the system in ancient documents.

SHOULD the bum get away with unjustly divorcing his wife, and the wife had no family nearby to redeem her ( support Her ) then she was forced into one of two professions,

Prostitution or Bond Slavery, precisley the passages application in Exodus 21 Bond Slavery,

I tell you , Brewers research fits perfectly within the scriptures context, in fact without it it does more damage than good. just like without Church Discipline it does more damage than good. More damage to the cause of Christ and his church.

i see many who want to judge and condemn both parties of a divorce or who would seek a divorce, but yet are immune to church discipline themselves, and dont even have it in their churches.

Why is that often times the case???

To Peter M
God Bless You!!
I agree completely, I am not in agreement with the author. I did not venture to say what you did, because I am not divorced, nor some deep scholar, but I agree with you. The God who made the universe can also bring peace to those who are unwillingly divorced. I think this is God's best plan to stay unmarried and even to pray for reconcilliation and spiritual healing of your spouse seems to me to fit with all of scripture that I know. It does not mean there is no forgiveness for those who do remarry. It does not mean remarried people cannot have fellowship in the church (though I believe they ought not be candidates for leadership), but I don't think it is God's desire that they remarry. I think the author tries to understand some early church context, and uses it build a contrived set of rules. I don't believe that any amount of scholarship will serve to negate the role of the Holy Spirit in dealing with complex matters. I think the author's academic focus perhaps causes him to miss the obvious entirely. Jesus said that Mosaic law permitting divorce was a concession to the hardened hearts of His people. The Holy Spirit knows both the mind of God and where we are spiritually and emotionally. I think this is why different people are convicted of different things and yet later as they grow in the knowledge and spirit of Christ they become convicted of new things, and the Spirit continues to apply a higher and higher standard in their life. To try to formulate set responses and answers from scripture that strech and even contradict was is clearly delineated in another passage of scripture appears to me to presume to be able to replace the Holy Spirit with a human understanding whatever the framework or level of study I find that very questionable ground. I submit that there are certainly legitimate causes for divorce, but I don't believe we can make a solid case for remarriage. The only rabbi whose opinion I'm really interested in is Jesus Christ, and His answer seems clear to me.

Dear Editors:

I know that you have cared very much about Jesus and his truth in the past. That is why I have always loved CT.

Yet, given the context of the traditional evangelical understanding of divorce in North America, your 1992 issue (a great one), and rampant divorce today . . . why did you not at least allow an alternative point of view, like Piper's, juxtaposed to this one?

Your commitment to egalitarianism and now this much more liberal view of divorce, is helping the church in North America slide away from a counter cultural Christianity. Like the liberals in Europe and Canada in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, you are embracing a path away from the hard teachings of scipture to the easier path of accomadation to the spirit of the age.

This point is not a scriptural argument (which I can make on both counts, independently), but it is an attempt to describe the obvious larger issue. I always wondered why the liberals that I studied with at Princeton and other places could not see how they had sold out to culture - albeit in sophisticated ways - and how it undermined their other basic beliefs and, indeed, the commitments of their churches (even viability). Now I am asking myself the same questions about CT on these matters.

This is truly said for me. I have always loved to receive CT because it helped me to follow Jesus - and sometimes when I needed help to resist the influence of my worldly-culture.

I only wish more would honestly grapple with the larger sociological factors that are helping generate these views at CT. Like others, CT is currently emasculating the counter-cultural teachings of the Bible for rich, worldly North American Christians. Remember, she who marries the spirit of the age will one day wake up and find herself to be a widow . . .

Respectfully Yours,

Dr. Bob Harrington
Franklin, TN

Written in Cupertino, California; 29 Oct 2007;

The reasoning and insight of Rev. Instone-Brewer in the recent CT article is simple, straightforward, and quite illuminating. This article concerns a passage where Jesus appears to contradict the Word of God revealed previously (Mosaic Law).

In Matthew 19, Jesus was asked a simple question by a group trying to catch him in a contradiction with previous scripture so that they could shut him up (at least) or run him out of town (if possible) or kill him (maximum effect). Jesus gave them a simple answer. However, the modern understanding of Jesus’ simple answer (as understood today by most) contradicted Mosaic Law rather directly. That is, using the modern understanding of Jesus’ answer, Jesus appears to say that there is no cause for divorce except for adultery. This answer clearly contradicts Mosaic Law which not only permits divorce but even spells out the details and limited conditions under which it may occur.

Yet his questioners accepted Jesus’ answer as correct and to follow Mosaic Law.

So, what’s the deal here? Why didn’t they run him out of town? Did Jesus contradict Mosaic Law or did Jesus affirm Mosaic Law? These are mutually exclusive cases, either one or the other is correct and there is no in-between case. There can be no fence-sitting on this one.

The answer is: that our “modern understanding” of Jesus answer is incorrect, that Jesus did not contradict Mosaic Law, and that Jesus affirmed Mosaic Law. I thank Rev. Instone-Brewer for this article in particular and his work in general which shows why our previous “modern understanding” was incorrect.

Jesus came to fulfill the law. Jesus brought no new law with him and the Word of God as revealed previously stands as is with Jesus being the completion (fulfillment) of that law. Divorce is permitted under Mosaic Law for specific causes (reasons) and that law holds today for those who follow Jesus. In the Word of God (the law), nothing changes as we go from the “old testament” to the “new testament”.

As I said, the reasoning of Rev. Instone-Brewer is simple. It is perhaps too simple for these complex thinkers to understand. There is no Old Testament God and there is no New Testament God, there is only God: unique, exclusive, one, unbroken, and undivided. God does not say one thing on Monday and something else on Friday (those kinds of activities are reserved for Satan and his followers), and neither did he say one thing through Moses and another thing directly (in the personage of Jesus).

There are some who said that Matthew 19 is “a straightforward passage”. Standing alone, that might seem to be true, at least for those who have forgotten that Jesus came to fulfill the law and not bring new law. As presented in modern translations of the Bible in the English language, the soi-disant “straightforward passage” in Matthew 19 is in fact anything but straightforward because it contradicts Mosaic Law.

Could any of those who oppose the insights presented in Rev. Instone-Brewer’s article and who affirm the previous misunderstanding of the passage in question please kindly explain how Jesus could say something that contradicted Mosaic Law and still be himself (God)?

Robert R. Kerr, Ph.D.

Robert Kerr asked to "explain how Jesus could say something that contradicted Mosaic Law and still be himself (God)?". Jesus didn't contradict Old Testament law because a careful reading of Deuteronomy 24.1-4 indicates, not permission to divorce, but simply that a twice divorced or divorced and widowed woman, could not return to her first husband. Moses himself (not God) may have permited divorce but Jesus said "But I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery." Matthew 19 is straight forward if we accept its plain meaning.

Peter, I thank you for your response which is interesting and revealing.

You clearly demonstrated that all positive responses to my question must include the affirmation of both the Torah and Gospels as The Word of God and that Instone-Brewer’s theses are correct.

Any negative responses to my question require a negation of either the Torah or The Gospels as the Word of God, which is exactly what you did. You indicated that you do not believe that Exodus is the Word of God, but simply Moses’ writing. That is, your negation of Instone-Brewer’s thesis of the correct interpretation of Matthew 19 includes a negation of the Torah as The Word of God.

The text where God clearly spells out the grounds and conditions for divorce is not Deuteronomy 24:1 (the misinterpretation of which began just prior to Jesus’ arrival, said misinterpretation being the subject of Rev. Instone-Brewer’s article and work), but Exodus 21:10-11 which was reaffirmed by Paul in Chapter 7 of his First Letter to the Corinthians.

You are indeed correct that Matthew 19 has a plain meaning but it is not the one you indicated but rather the one that Rev. Instone-Brewer has demonstrated.

Best regards

Robert, thank you for your comments. Exodus is the word of God. However Exodus 21:10-11 addresses the rights of female slaves. To assume this sanctions divorce and remarriage to Christians today is highly speculative, if not outrightly wrong. John Piper addresses this more fully at: www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2007/2443_Tragically_Widening_the_Grounds_of_Legitimate_Divorce/

Dear CT, Re: “What God Has Joined…”

Being divorced 4 years ago by my wife I have had ample time to research this volatile subject. May I respond to this unfortunate article. It seems Mr. Brewer and many others have done a terrible disservice to the church…especially the children of those who choose these questionable “abuse/neglect” divorces. Given the controversy over the subject and the far-reaching negative effects of divorce on the spouses, children, the church and society… more responsible editing might have also included the article by John Piper “Divorce and Remarriage… A Position Paper.” www.desiringgod.com (please read it) The exception clause of “porneia” so liberally applied today is therein contextually clarified.

Since Brewer wants to hear the Scripture from the ears of the hearers… the immediate shock the disciples had over Christ’s view of the permanence of marriage should validate a position quite different from his. Jesus also said divorce was allowed by MOSES (not Him) because of the hardness of hearts. Let’s remember that according to Jesus, hardness of heart (unforgiveness) might lead to Him rejecting them in the end. Our divorce epidemic may be just a symptom of the ‘cheap grace, no repentance required’ gospel. Compassion for hurting spouses should never be elevated above the mandates of Scripture.

Nonetheless, Brewer’s reasonings in arriving at his published doctrines are flawed. Those in his camp view marriage as a contract to be performed on not a covenant. He leaps from then Jewish culture into allowing similar license for today. We do not interpret Scripture in light of Jewish divorce documents or then cultural norms. Christ’s statements are absolute in Mark and Luke and sobering in Matthew. Paul affirms the most powerful witness of marriage as being a picture of Christ and the church. If a divorced Hosea husband remains faithful to his wayward Gomer bride, that indeed is a ‘picture’ of our situation today, isn’t it? An unfaithful “bride”to Christ. Paul affirms remaining single as best. It is quite a leap to say that “you are not bound” to an unbeliever to then giving the green light to remarry. Brewer avoids much other context as well as common sense. eg. Adultery was grounds for execution in the day he researched. Should we permit that today? Also, young children don’t need to see their mother going to bed with a man when their Daddy is just across town. Blended families might appear better than a previous one, but they may be a form of serial polygamy. Reason has been eclipsed, by deception.

The God-honoring mandates of Jesus regarding faithfulness to, service of and forgiveness toward others are ignored when a person chooses divorce and then elects to remarry. I have yet to hear a pastor come at it from this angle, let alone forgo remarriage that causes children to “stumble” just a bit. As followers of Christ true forgiveness is not optional. Divorce is. Yes, in abusive situations, legal separation is an option. Still the vows and union should remain intact by the violated spouse. Sadly, those who errantly initiate divorce most often are selfishly serving themselves, and hurting their own children, not mention our witness. The manifold rationalizations for divorce/remarriage do our enemy’s bidding…fostering destruction and corruption of the family/marriage God ordained. One thing’s for sure…no marriages in heaven and we will all stand accountable for our lives… divorce-suggesting pastors and counselors especially.

JustinTraver@runbox.com, Gresham Oregon

Listen up...Those who reference 'thus saith Mosaic Law'

Adultery was grounds for: execution.

Shall we 'permit' this today, to go along with I-Brewer's 'permissions' to divorce?

JT

"eg. Adultery was grounds for execution in the day he researched"

This is not true. Only the Roman government had the right to execute prisoners, this is why Jesus was put on trial in front of Pilate who spinelessly passes judgment and not the Sanhedrin.

"Exodus 21:10-11 addresses the rights of female slaves"

In the rabbinical thinking of the 1st century through the modern times what was good for the slave wife is good for the free one and thus the husband. See for example:

The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce in Ancient and Modern Times, By Moses Mielziner 1884 (http://books.google.com/books?id=YRFEX5uZVpcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Philo+special+laws+any+cause#PPP3,M1)

# 1 On account of the wife's adultery and even on strong suspicion of her having committed this crime
# 2 On account of her public violation of moral decency
# 3 On account of her change of religion or proved disregard of the Ritual Law in the management of the household by which she caused him to transgress the religious precepts against his will
# 4 On account of obstinate refusal of connubial rights during a whole year
# 5 On account of her unjustified refusal to follow him to another domicile

Clearly abandonment is there, a good arguement can be made for neglect. **Why do Christians think that Ex 21:10-11 does not apply to them?** Isn't our martial obligations to provide material and emotional support for our spouses? It is part of scripture. Ignorance of Ex 21:10-11 is perhaps why I've seen and we've all witnessed such crappy 'Christian' marriages.

One can see the interplay of Dt 24:1 and Ex 21:10-11 in modern Judaism and that the "Any Cause" divorce is still in place. See http://www.jewfaq.org/divorce.htm

Frank,
You are very well-studied and learned.
But,as Jesus says, it appears you are "straining a gnat."

If you rationalize divorcing a disappointing spouse, how can you also give an open door for the usual self-centered remarriage? This is where the pro-divorce-remarriage argument falls apart completely. Even the secular cultural experts of today, agree that bringing in a step parent is not healthy and only further complicates a child's life.

Jesus and Paul 'suggest' it's better after a divorce to remain single.

We have drifted from sound reason.

JT

JT:
Jesus and I believe that Paul would reject, divorce based on adultery, neglect or abuse (Mt 19:8) for a repentant partner. Abandonment is addressed by Paul 1 Co 7 10-11 and 15-16.

We as Christians are to forgive, but does that go on forever? What if the other party is unrepentant, hence hardness of heart in Mt 19:8. Abusive situations can come about by quick divorces (Mt 19:3) and by complete neglect/abandonment (Ex 21:10-11). Divorces are never to be taken lightly. Instone-Brewer does NOT advocate this. If you go to his website and blog that would be very clear.

The Holy Spirit would reject divorce because one partner feels neglected because of the demands of work on the breadwinner partner. What about an addictive gambling situation? I'm not talking about blowing one paycheck on gambling, I've seen one partner go into debt by 2 years wages because of gambling. How long should the offended partner stay in that sort of marriage?

I think we can all agree in this forum that easy divorce because one spouse thinks they’re unsatisfied or ‘outgrown’ the marriage is unbiblical.

Yes CT Readers,
Easy divorce is wrong. Easy remarriage is even more wrong.

I trust this will not be digressing. But picture is worth alot.
Let me personalize this and give you a pastoral case study, if you will.

Anyone out there want to marry my former wife? She's hot. A smaller version of Cindy Crawford. She'll tell you she was neglected and God told her to divorce me. She is the innocent one. As was her mother, now on her 3rd questionable marriage. Let's assume you are divorced, looking for a second redemptive chance in God's abundant graceland. You're now FREE and there is NO SIN in REMARRIAGE. So you fall and with mixed motives do the legal marriage to my ex...without any consultation of me. It's OK, I understand.

Keep in mind...You'll be having lifelong 'fellowship' with me as a Christian 'brother'. We'll attend frequent events together.
You may have it made legal, but you might be defrauding me as a brother. (Please See:1 Thess 4:6)
You'll be violating and entering the most sacred place on earth to me...the very place where my children were conceived. You'll be usurping my role as a father and cutting in on my two young daughters' fatherly affection. You'll also be receiving money from me that you didn't work for. You'll be sleeping in my former bed, just a hollow wall away from my innocent daughters. You'll enjoy middle-class assets that took me years to earn. You'll get to see me once a week in a local church, that emphasizes grace and tolerance. In this church repentance is not required, always optional. Why not, brother? If God approves of your remarriage, there's no problem on my side. Maybe we can carpool it.

Later on, I'll get to pay for the counseling of my daughters' anger and confusion over what their mother did and is doing to them.
You and I will jointly have to agree on how to handle their sexual promiscuity and rebellion. If it gets a bit uncomfortable, then make sure you read a book and "set your healthy boundaries". But you and I will somehow model true Christian unity for my children. All men will know we are His Disciples as we just have sincere LOVE for one another. And you loving my former wife, too! You eventually realize you will have taken away all possible opportunity for the Holy Spirit to bring about repentance and a reuniting of the original intact family...this of course being God's best redemptive story.
You decided to create another one.

Is this what we believe God approves of and blesses?
No sin? 73% of 2nd marriages fail. The writing is on the wall.
Remarriage is adulterizing/corrupting/complicating. Their is grace for all. but let's just call sin what it is: Wrong.

You foolish Americans! Who has bewitched you?
Forgive the sarcasm, but it is used by the Biblical authors to get points made.

Justin

I am not an American. I am not a native English speaker. I was reading all comments very carefully and one strange thing jumped at me : quite a few of the persons posting comments and interacting with Dr. Brewer have some serious problems with the English grammar. Wonder if it would be a good idea to get them to sort of polish their English a bit before crossing intellectual swords with a professor of rabbinics and New Testament ??? Just asking !

Well said Justin. Remarriage does not solve the problem of divorce but creates another.

I'm a subscriber and I must say that I also interpreted the article the way that many of your readers did. It amazed me that your author could say that for 2000 years the church (and the Holy Spirit too, by the way) got it wrong and that now he, the author, was here to set us all right.

I concur with Alain Maashe's appeal to Matthew 19:11 and Jesus' subsequent response to His disciples' reaction as an indicator of the proper meaning of the teaching on divorce. The rest of Scripture confirms the sentiment that divorce ought to be avoided with all possible effort. Appealing to context can inform us, but extra-Biblical content should be judged by Scripture and not the other way around. That is to say, extra-Biblical content should have a ministerial effect on Biblical interpretation, not a magisterial effect.

Yahoo News attracted me to this article, because it concluded that Evangelicals were starting to become flexible on divorce, and may become flexible on other controversial subjects as well. Their reaction to Instone-Brewer implied that it confirmed their belief that the Bible does not have a plain meaning and that consequently we can't take any solid stands based on its message (or at least in the messages that society has troubles with). In this sense, the Instone-Brewer article has done a disservice to the authority of Scripture, whether intentional or not.

I understand that Instone-Brewer tried to deal with a real problem pragmatically and I believe he was attempting to find a Scriptural license for divorce in cases of physical and emotional duress. I trust that was the case, and I have sympathy with that effort. It is not Political Correctness that causes one to fear for the life and welfare of children and wives/husbands of abusive spouses, but conscience.

One could, in a sense, interpret Paul as adding to Christ's exceptions for divorce by saying that a new-Christian who is married to an unbeliever is not bound to hold that unbelieving spouse to the marital commitment. Jesus did not say this, as far as we know, but it is a nuance of which the Holy Spirit informed Paul. We may speculate on the fullness of nuances that may exist, however since we only know for sure what is in Scripture, we ought to make that our rule, and seek the Holy Spirit's advice where conscience is convicted. We should also not confuse conscience with feelings of pity. That Evangelical divorce rates match or exceed that of the average population is evidence that we don't take the Biblical teachings seriously enough! It is a pathetic example to a World that wants to know how to live a redeemed life. Unfortunately, I don't know how it can be taught better... the issue is not in the teaching, but the fact that we Christians do not live Christian lives.

This brings me to a necessary response to Karen. Karen, the situation your ex-husband put you in was attrocious and lamentable. Desiring to not get divorced just because it was the "Christian" thing may have been the right thing to do but for the wrong reason. I hope it was for love of both your spouse and God, and not just because of a rule or law. That being said, there are women who attempted to stay with their husband against their best judgment, and yet have had much more positive results. This is not a guarantee for everyone, but for those for whom it worked out, they will tell you how that "law" was a blessing. If they did not know God's hope for marriage and His displeasure with divorce, they would have not likely tried to persevere at all.

However Karen, I feel you yourself judge too harshly. Perhaps you judge yourself too harshly, too? Clearly your husband deceived you and was not a believer, did he not? It was he who left you in the end, and we know from Paul that God does not require you to preserve the marriage in this case. As far as I can see from what you've shared, you did everything you could to honour God, and at great personal suffering. The Bible does not judge you harshly at all, and any guilt you may be tempted to feel is from the Enemy trying to distance you from God. I think you know that God loves you, but perhaps you are angry at Him because of these passages? I cannot console you of the pain this has caused you, but whatever was inflicted upon you was inflicted upon the Lord as well, because He was with you in the place of your anguish. He will not forget you now after being through so much together with you. I hope no Church will fault you in your divorce, either.

I have no idea what to tell you about remarriage, but in case you do, beware of wolves in sheeps clothes. I don't know what your case is, but I know of women who despite knowing many Christians will inexplicably put themselves in the way of non-Christian men (some of who will convert for her sake). I am not saying that a Christian man makes a better husband, but that a Christian man has at least one more Person to answer to if he mistreats you. Please beware, as some people seem to be tempted in this area more than others.

Justin makes a good point.

I certainly would favor people remarrying and churches approving of such remarriages doing due diligence to communicate with former partners and church elders that approved the divorce taking place.

Exodus 21 is a guideline for a JUDGE to make a determination.

But that doesn't negate my (and Franks) basic point that neglect isn't and doesn't have to be a nebulous concept.

Nobody has a problem deciding that in some cases, parents abusively *neglect* their children and could lawfully have them REMOVED.

I like the jewish standard of refused sex FOR A WHOLE YEAR. A court examining things should take into account how long things go on, etc. The problem is NO FAULT divorce, or easy divorce.

And the problem will be imperfect justice, but that always happens anyway, in everything from murder trials to pie cutting.

One scenario to consider might be this:

A.) If 50% of the women in a church were choosing convenience abortions, Most people would be outraged at this atrocity in the faith!

B.) Then 50% of the women in a church choose divorce.
What's the response? Sympathy, a prayer, but hardly a peep anymore.

Now consider the consequences:

A.) The murdered powerless child who is aborted, suffers briefly, and then rests eternally in heaven.

B.) The powerless children of divorce endure this:
A lifetime of emotional/mental pain and problems. How many reject Christ because of what is modeled and end up lost in hell?

Which has eternally worse consequences? Abortion or Divorce.

Continuing...The divorced kids' problems are well documented. Now consider the spiritual consequences. From the two persons in life that were to lead them...these children do not see repentance/forgiveness/grace modeled. They see something that "causes them to stumble." They say...'If this is what God's people are like...or maybe...If Bible promises say this and that and God is so great, why did this happen?' This distorts the child's mind and actually discourages them accepting the Christian faith.

What is the outcome? These children might become spiritually lost,
as they wander through life without the stability of an intact Christian home. Mrs.Marquardt's CT article about children of broken homes seeking God more... because their parents failed them...I doubt really occurs. The stability of an intact
(albeit imperfect) Christian family produces a higher percentage of converts. This is undeniable. Christina leaders wanting more 'growth"in number of Disciples, might consider protecting the family rather than focusing on church administration. Granted, divorce has crept into the culture and those who are affected by it (guilty or not) need to be ministered to. Pastors, let's not remain passive about the cause while we focus on treating the symptoms of divorce.
The ripple effect of consequences suggests divorce be denounced, just as plainly as Jesus did.

We all know God says "I hate divorce". (Malachi 2.)
I believe this is why: The marriage is supposed to produce "godly offspring."
Broken homes are counterproductive to this. They often produce angry rebels. Not secure, faithful youngsters.
If broken homes are modeled, then blended homes are modeled...this creates an imprinted repeating pattern. Our society's family unit is now weakened severely. Our witness is as well.

All this to ask us: Where do these children end up eternally?
Is the likelihood of there salvation lesser or greater if their Christian families crumble and end in divorce?

Is is coincidental that Christ immediately after denouncing divorce and remarriage (in Mark 10), He then discusses how we "should not hinder these little ones" from entering the kingdom?

Can I get a witness to this?

I guess we're done.

But the divorcing will continue.

JT

Very interesting... as always! Cheers from -Switzerland-.

If you want to read an article from someone who really "got inside their heads" (talking about the rabbis here), but never lost his Biblical perspective, then check out Dr. William A. Heth's article:
http://www.sbts.edu/pdf/sbjt/SBJT_2002Spring2.pdf
I am sorry this is a pdf file. There is a link to am html version, but the link is 200 characters long (or so).

On page 21 you will find this as part of his conclusions:
"Also, provision for a spouse’s food, clothing, and housing, affection, communication, spiritual leadership, and a host of other qualities, are, no doubt, important requirements in marriage—but failures in these matters do not justify divorce."

I think someone needs to re-examine the premise of the original article as it applies to Exodus 21:10-11. You really need to read this starting from verse 1. Those verses are talking about a man who is marrying a second wife, while still owning a purchased servant/wife.

The original article says that Jesus is just talking about Deut 24:1 when he responds to the Pharisees question in Matthew 19. But Jesus himself went past Deuteronomy, past Exodus and all the way back to the beginning when he said "the two will become one flesh". Jesus did not say that 3 will become one flesh. So the original premise of using Exodus 21 is starting from an example that is already out of the will of God. I don't see how you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

The problem of divorce is more than a theological or ontological one. The emotional complications often clouds our judgments. For instance, what about the divorced person who is divorced prior to conversion. Now we have a saved, transformed person living a life of a true functioning Christian and then they remarry and found a Christian family? The questions is was that earlier secular marriage a marriage before God? Is a new Christian a "new person"? Are they reborn? Has the past been done away with?

In most churches, the emotional answer is no? They are a divorced person. Many denominations theology has been changed to adjust, even in the Roman Church. But the emotional toll among the ordinary devoted church member has not changed. And thus, sadly, not changed in the church body. A pagan, divorced, now saved and then married is still kept from true leadership roles even though in all other circumstances they more than meet the requirements. The unfortunate truth is that in the protestant church culture we are guilty of maintaining a tradition that is not biblical. As leaders, Pastors, members of the Body of Christ we have not lead
with courage. If the salvation of souls and the wise use of God's grace is our goal, we are failing miserably as far as this topic goes.

My husband "hated" my son. He physically attacked him three times. To watch this type of anger was hurtful. Couseling did not help. He blamed my son. I divorced him after he went after my son the third time. It hurt too much too watch this. I do feel quily about getting a divorce ,but after 2 years ,my ex-husband still is angry and blames my son for the divorce. I will remain christs' bride and except his love and peace above another.

Heavens, you all sound so "educated" and so wise. I simply would like to say ...when I speak to my husband, he is NEVER LISTENING!... When I am upset..he sighs, as if to say "oh, not again.."..When we attempted to wrap Christmas presents, he cursed at the tape, the wrapping paper and the price tags and price labels which he could not remove QUICKLY ENOUGH for his time schedule! {TRUST ME, this WAS MERELY A tid-bit} I know that JESUS loves me.........BUT, THIS MAN ruins every happy moment of my life!!! He complains 24/7...he NEVER unleashes his anger @ work........he saves THAT for ME! I SAID MY VOWS.... after meditating on each and every word....BUT I JUST LOST BOTH OF MY PARENTS, MY JOB, AND MY NINETEEN year old dog.....no support!!!!!!! I work endlessly for the PRO-LIFE movement and was warned by my PREIST "not to leave any literature near the church". You see, EVERYONE whom I was taught to believe in...depend on..has failed me!! I CHOOSE TO RID MYSELF OF THOSE WHO KEEP ME FROM BEING WHO MY LORD HAS DESIGNED ME TO BE!!!....RULES made by a "MAN"...by "MEN" are RIGHT NOW, THE FURTHEST THING I CHOOSE TO CONTEMPLATE> There are grater works to be done. My beautiful {2} girls married well, and are on their own..following Catholic Church doctrine.......MY WORK IS DONE!! I am now searching for a church WHERE I CAN FEEL RIGHT IN!! I AM NOW CONTEMPLATING THE 'CORRECT'...'SAFE' WAY TO HIT THE ROAD.....FINALLY! so....PLEASE PRAY FOR ME....AS I WILL FOR EACH AND EVERY WRITER. TRICIA

Roman Catholic theologians have thoroughly studied this issue for at least two thousand years. It is a separate area of law in Cannon Law. I will defer to them in these matters. The Pauline Privilege is a dissolution of marriage in which both parties to a previous marriage were non-baptized throughout the entire duration of their married life. It can be requested when one of the parties either wishes Christian baptism or has been baptized Christian and the other party remains unbaptized.

I am a now divorced man. I divorced my wife reluctantly; but through necessity. You can read my story here http://mencanbeabusedtoo.wordpress.com/my-story-part-1/

Basically I had become paralysed by a virus which hospitalised me for 2 months. On my coming home I was subject to emotional, physical, spiritual abuse which continued over the next 14 months. I was to become homeless because of this abuse.

I am now remarried and thank God for my wife who models Godliness in every way. I for one thank CT and Dr Brewster for this research for my previous pastor had told me I couldn't leave nor divorce and as a man should just suck up the crap dished out to me.

Well, some article, and... some comments. I think that the church, generally speaking, would do well to confront divorce. I'm not objective on this - I'm getting divorced, I don't want to get divorced. But there's no choice in it when one party bails - they don't need the other side's okay. All they need is a $300/hr divorce lawyer and a restraining order, and... voila. Both are very easy to obtain, and very difficult to overcome. No counseling, no communicating, no useful church intervention - just two favored tools of an angry woman leaving her marriage. See? Told you I wasn't objective - that last line will no doubt anger some. But folks, it happens, and happens often.

Yeah... the church should shuttup about abortion and gays, and do something useful, like... confront divorce.

I always found the no divorce or remarriage position to be utterly preposterous from a Biblical standpoint. Not only are EXCEPTIONS stated, the word EXCEPT is given by the Lord, and the same Lord could not avoid DIVORCING his unfaithful wife in the OT, and goes into detail about giving her the bill of divorcement. Brewer's thesis is an unconfortable one for me due to fear of justifying the divorce craze in the churches. But fidelity to Scripture, not fear must govern us. I posit that most professing Christians are NOT real believers, they live in sin, and divorce is simply one manifestation of the godless lives they live while "going to church", and many churches utterly fail the people because much of what they do and even the government itself is unBiblical.

The cry for John Piper to have another soapbox is nonsense. His views have been heard everywhere, and I am not interested in his manmade doctrines or opinions flooding another internet site. He is wrong on many issues, including this one

Ned, could you please clarify as to when the Lord divorced his wife? God is spirit and has never married.