Divorce and Remarriage in the Church

Divorce and Remarriage in the Church

By David Instone-Brewer

A review

By John Haynes

p. 14 He says that there are “two valid grounds for divorce, but remarriage is not allowed unless on of the former spouses has died.” About that he says this “is the one given by most established churches.” Really? I don’t think I even know of one church that holds this view. Anecdotal, I know, but still important.

p. 16 He deals with the idea of “no one can separate.” The passage that Jesus said in Matt. 19:6 says, “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (NIV). It does not say, he goes to great lengths to point out, “no one can separate.” But is there a real difference?

He points out that the phrase “let not man separate” is an imperative. He is correct, but he fails to understand what that means. The imperative mood shows a command. Jesus was saying that mankind must not under any circumstances separate. So how is that really different from saying “can separate”? I’m not sure there is a real difference.

p. 20 He talks about God giving us Scripture, which by definition means the Old and New Testaments. He says that Scripture is “full of histories, letters, prophetic messages and praise songs. [But] it contains almost no theology.” What? Has he never read the book of Romans? This is a stupid statement and factually untrue.

p. 35 He discusses three more biblical grounds for divorce (in addition to adultery and desertion). He addresses Exodus 21-10-11:

“If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. ¹¹ If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment” (NLT).

He then switches into lawyer mode and says that this passage shows case law in the OT. Even though we don’t practice polygamy or slavery, he says, we still should draw principles from this passage. The problem is that polygamy and slavery are part of the case here. You can’t divorce it (no pun intended) from the passage.

p. 36. Regarding the man who had been gathering sticks on the Sabbath, he says that Moses “decided that he deserved death.” Moses did no such thing. God declared his punishment (Num. 15:35).

p. 40 “A good lawyer might argue that she did not use the magical legal phrase ‘Time is of the essence.’” What? What does that have to do with anything?

p. 71 “Paul’s wife had probably did in childbirth (as happened all too often in the first century).” How in the world can he make a statement like that? He doesn’t know anything about Paul’s past!

p. 72 “The present distress” (1 Cor. 7:26). . . . Historians guess that he must have been referring to the famine that was afflicting the region at that time.” Again, another leap.

“In general Paul approved of marriage.” Glad he thinks so. I think Paul approved more than generally.

p. 94 “Origen, the greatest of the church fathers at the start of the third century.” Rather dubious statement. Iranaeus (died in 202) was better in my opinion. There was also Hippolytus and Tertullian, who both rivaled Origen.

pp. 94-95 “A couple should not separate without getting divorced, because Paul specifically says that married couples may not separate (1 Cor. 7:10-11).” Not true. He says that if separated, you must remain unmarried. Read the text, please!

p. 96 “Rather than indicating that Jesus did not accept the validity of divorce for neglect and abuse, his silence about it highlights the fact that he did accept it, like all other Jews at that time.” You cannot argue from silence, and he knows this!

p. 98 “We have concluded that Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:9 (and par.) only exclude divorce for “Any Cause,” but does this mean that Jesus accepted  the grounds given in Exodus 21:10-11? As we saw earlier in this chapter, we can probably assume that he did accept them because if he had not he would have said so.” This is putting words in Jesus’ mouth. Not allowed.

p. 99 “Later in the chapter, when [Paul] suggests that people should postpone their marriage plans because of the famine. . . .” Paul never mentions a famine. You can’t put words in Paul’s mouth, either.

“Although Paul does not specifically say that these three areas of neglect can be grounds for divorce, the fact that he talks about them as obligations implies that he accepted them and agreed with them [Ex. 21:10-11]. . . . If Paul did not accept these grounds for divorce, he would not have used these verses as a basis for his teaching on the obligations within marriage.” But Paul isn’t using them as proofs for divorce. Not at all.

p. 100 “In summary, Paul accepts all four Old Testament grounds for divorce.” No he didn’t. He didn’t prove this at all.

p. 106 Apparently this author has also written a book called Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. So how is that different from this book?

p. 206 “Jesus is using preacher’s rhetoric when he tells people to gouge out the eyes.” Preacher’s rhetoric? Never heard of that. How about hyperbole?