Anne was clearly angry. She relayed how her former husband had been abusive, had beaten her and sexually violated her. Despite this, however, he had never – as far as she knew – had an affair. Did this mean she had sinned before God for leaving her marriage? Was she now required to remain celibate for the rest of her life? Anne recited Jesus’ words with palpable sarcasm, “whoever divorces his wife, except for adultery, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Anne’s story was the real life face of an intellectual journey and struggle I had faced some years earlier during my theology studies. How should I understand the bibles teaching on divorce? When I was at Bible College I remember two approaches vividly.
The first was from a marriage counsellor who, when I asked him if we should counsel battered spouses to leave their marriages, responded “no, until death do we part”. He refused to take with any seriousness my suggestion that in some cases the death of one spouse might be a realistic outcome if the battered spouse does not leave.
The second was a lecturer who argued that the New Testament did not speak unequivocally on this topic. While Matthew’s gospel allowed an exception for adultery, Mark’s gospel seemed to condemn divorce outright with no exceptions. On the other hand Paul, in his epistle to the Corinthians, contended that a person abandoned by their spouse “is not bound”. The Greek in this epistle alluded to the wording of a Jewish divorce certificate, which stated that the person in question had a right to remarry. The lecturer, quite correctly, concluded that Paul allowed divorce and remarriage for abandonment. The lecturer then suggested that because Paul added to Jesus’ teaching so could we.
Both approaches seemed to me to be evidently problematic. My questions remained equally unsolved by the Pastor who told me that he accepted Jesus’ teaching as correct but did not follow it because it was “impractical” in the real world and in his experience. I was underwhelmed by the author who suggested that because Mark, Paul and Matthew disagreed, we should just choose the one we find the most congenial.
Then I discovered a study, which to my mind answered my questions and addressed Anne’s concerns. The book was Divorce and Re-Marriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context by David Instone-Brewer. Brewer is a scholar of first century rabbinical writings. In his book he places Christ’s teaching within the cultural context of first century Judaism; the results are interesting and enlightening.
The passage Anne cited comes from Matthew 19. This passage begins with a question from the Pharisees – the Jewish religious scholars at that time – which asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” In the dialogue the Pharisees appeal to Deuteronomy 24 and ask, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” The passage Anne cited is part of Christ’s response to this argument.
Brewer’s study documents the background of this debate. In the Judaism of Christ’s day there was a consensus that people could divorce on grounds of abuse or serious neglect. This was based on a passage in Exodus 21, which regulated a man’s relationship with a concubine; although I would argue that the bible does not condone this practice, its existence meant the Old Testament law (The Torah) did tolerate and regulate it. The Torah stated that if a concubine was deprived of “food,” “clothing” or “conjugal rights” then she was free to leave. The Rabbis argued, quite sensibly, that if this was true of a concubine then how much more true is it for a wife?
The requirements to provide food, clothing and conjugal rights became the basis of Jewish marriage vows. Hence, by the time of Christ the consensus was that divorce was allowed for the gross violation of these vows through abuse or neglect. This position was assumed both by the conservative school of Shammai and the liberal school of Hillel; the two dominant schools of thought in Christ’s day.
Where these schools differed was over Deuteronomy 24 – the very passage cited by the Pharisees in Matthew’s Gospel. This passage refers to a man divorcing his wife for “a reason of sexual immorality”. The liberal Hillel Rabbis split this phrase into two separate clauses and argued it allowed a person to divorce for “immorality”, which they understood as adultery, and also for “a reason”, which they understood as any reason at all. Some liberal Rabbis were quite candid, the reference to “a reason” meant a man could divorce his wife if she cooked him a bad meal or if he thought she was too ugly or if perhaps he saw someone more attractive and he wanted to ‘trade her in’. However, the conservative Shammai Rabbis argued that it should be read as a single phrase, “a reason of sexual immorality” so that the passage only allows divorce for adultery.
Despite their differences, both schools recognised divorces granted by the other schools courts as valid. Hence, a person who had a Hillelite “any reason” divorce would have their divorce recognised as valid by a Shammaite court.
Brewer also documents how records of rabbinical debates tended to not spell out all the background details and qualifications, which everyone at the time knew about. An example from contemporary moral debates might illustrate this. In New Zealand society today there is an ongoing debate over the drinking age. Now suppose I hear someone on the radio saying “the drinking age should be 18.” I would not interpret this to mean that the person supports a ban on drinking per se, that they were arguing for young people to consume no fluids – no water, milk, Coca Cola, orange juice or anything – until age 18. That would be a ridiculous interpretation. Rather, I assume they mean to limit their use of the term ‘drinking’, in that context, to refer only to alcoholic drinks. I make this assumption despite the fact that the phrase “drinking age” is commonly used without any explicit qualifications because everyone knows what it means when they hear it. In a similar way, when a conservative Rabbi stated that it was “not lawful to divorce” or it is “not lawful to divorce except for adultery,” people knew the Rabbi was saying that it was wrong to divorce on grounds of “any reason”, a reference to the practice advocated by the liberal school.
This background sheds an interesting light on Christ’s teaching in Matthew 19. When the passage begins with the question “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” it seems that Christ is being asked to comment on the specific proposal of the liberal school. Is it lawful to divorce for not just material and physical neglect and infidelity but does The Torah, in fact, allow a fourth category of “any reason”? The appeal to Deuteronomy 24 to back this up by the Pharisees then fits quite nicely in this context as this was the standard liberal argument.
Christ’s response, in this context, is a rejection of the liberal reading in favour of the conservative one. In fact, Brewer notes the very phraseology and wording Christ used was the same as that used by the Shammaites; however, his claim “whoever divorces his wife, except for adultery, and marries another woman commits adultery” took the conservative reading one step further. Not only are liberal “any reason” divorces wrong but they are invalid. People who have divorced on the “any reason” ground did not gain a legitimate divorce.
Brewer’s analysis is the best I have come across to date; it makes sense of the text without requiring the reader to turn a blind eye to the bits that don’t seem to sit right. His argument further explains the apparent differences between Mark, Matthew and Paul. Mark’s gospel is significantly more summarised than Matthew’s, hence his unqualified claim that divorce is forbidden is simply a summary without qualification. Similarly, Paul’s application in 1 Corinthians is not in any real conflict with Jesus’. Taken in its context, Jesus was not condemning a person who, after being abandoned, walked away from the marriage and remarried. Material and physical neglect as a ground of divorce was not in question. In Jesus’ teaching he was simply rejecting the “any reason” approach of the liberal school.
This background to Paul’s writing is strongly suggested by the fact that in the same passage he refers to sexual activity between spouses as a ‘debt’ mutually owed to each other. Brewer notes that Paul’s language and teaching here reflects rabbinical understandings of Exodus 21, which allowed divorce for failure to provide “conjugal rights”. Paul is therefore not adding to Christ’s teaching, he is simply applying it to a different situation.
Brewer’s analysis addresses the concern that we need to adjust Christ’s teaching to the “practical realities of life today”. Brewer shows that Christ’s teaching is immensely practical; it avoids the extreme permissiveness of our modern no-fault culture, where women are abandoned to single parenthood at the whim of a man’s lust (and sometimes vice versa). It also avoids the harsh heartlessness of the counsellor I questioned as a student which condemns abuse victims to a life of brutality and sometimes death.
It also directly addresses the concerns Anne raised. Christ is not saying that a woman who flees a violent spouse is an adulterer if she re-marries; he was addressing a situation where men believed they could divorce their wives for any reason, including frivolous and poor reasons. Beating one’s spouse is a fairly obvious case of serious mistreatment and divorce for reasons like this were taken for granted in Christ’s discussion (it is why dowry’s were paid for brides – so they had financial means if their husbands mistreated them).
As I have met with the Anne’s of this world, I have discovered this information is profoundly important to them. They don’t want to disobey God and yet have often taken years to gain the courage needed to escape an abusive relationship. The Church has not always appropriately responded to their plight; it has felt torn between the harrowing situations their congregants are sometimes living with and what they perceived to be Christ’s teaching on divorce. Brewer’s study helps us see there is no dilemma, people like Anne are free to leave and remarry.
I write a monthly column for Investigate Magazine entitled “Contra Mundum.” This blog post was published in the Feb 2011 issue and is reproduced here with permission. Contra Mundum is Latin for ‘against the world;’ the phrase is usually attributed to Athanasius who was exiled for defending Christian orthodoxy.
Letters to the editor should be sent to:
ed*******@in*****************.com
RELATED POSTS:
Contra Mundum: Is God a 21st Century Western Liberal?
Contra Mundum: In Defence of Santa
Contra Mundum: The Number of the Beast
Contra Mundum: Pluralism and Being Right
Contra Mundum: Abraham and Isaac and the Killing of Innocents
Contra Mundum: Selling Atheism
Contra Mundum: Did God Command Genocide in the Old Testament?
Contra Mundum: Fairies, Leprechauns, Golden Tea Cups & Spaghetti Monsters
Contra Mundum: Secularism and Public Life
Contra Mundum: Richard Dawkins and Open Mindedness
Contra Mundum: Slavery and the Old Testament
Contra Mundum: Secular Smoke Screens and Plato’s Euthyphro
Contra Mundum: What’s Wrong with Imposing your Beliefs onto Others?
Contra Mundum: God, Proof and Faith
Contra Mundum: “Bigoted Fundamentalist” as Orwellian Double-Speak
Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth Myth
Contra Mundum: Confessions of an Anti-Choice Fanatic
Contra Mundum: The Judgmental Jesus
Tags: Adultery · David Instone Brewer · Divorce · Hermeneutics · Marriage · Remarriage · Spousal Abuse46 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Very nice work and very helpful. Thanks for this!
I first came across Brewster’s writings in Christianity Today. Having come out of an abusive marriage and been told all types of stuff about doing so… I found it extremely refreshing and freeing.
Well done for writing about a difficult topic with the sensitivity that you have approached it.
Jesus: On Divorce and Remarriage…
This is pretty interesting and an honest look at an issue loads and loads of people who happen to be Christians struggle to understand. Take a look….
Extremely well done Matt, with all due respect to previous work this has to be one of the most helpful Posts you have made.
I know you have said it many times and in many ways, but CONTEXT really does help, doesnt it.
Yet another example of selective use of scripture to justify re-marriage following a divorce. Have you considered the Judaism context of betrothal?
I may not be in a situation, or probably ever, that this will come up for me directly, but it was still a very excellent read.
@Bruce , you disappointment me. This post was not trying to justify remarriage following divorce. It was about abuse, abandoment and neglect being valid grounds for divorce and that if a subsequent marriage does occurr then the abused , abandoned and neglected person is not committing adultery.
The point is made quite clearly that divorce for frivolous reasons is wrong.
Ifind it very interesting that a better knowledge of the context of the debate in no way lowers the standard but shows God to be more understanding and compassionate
than a simplistic and out of context appears to make Him.It is good that greate understanding reinforces what God has had to say about Himself and at the same time removes apparent contradictions between His character and law.
that should be
*than a simplistic and out of context reading of the text appers to make Him*
Now that was interesting. 🙂
It was a very good read.
I disagree with your conclusion though:
“People like Anne are free to leave and remarry.”
I think you miss the point.
It’s not about: What Christ explicitly condemns and what he doesn’t.
It is about: Is someone obligated to keep their vows even though their spouse hasn’t?
I say yes.
I say you can’t break your promise to your spouse that you made before God, even if the other person has become abusive.
I’m not saying that you have to keep living with him. If the best way you can; love, honor and be faithful to your husband is to separate from him, then separate, and if necessary divorce. But the best way to be faithful can never be to re-marry (someone else).
In other situations, just as liberal “any reason” divorces are wrong and invalid; there can be wrong and invalid marriages. E.g. when either spouse never intended on keeping their vows, or when they were not making them freely, etc.
If what you meant at the altar was: To be faithful except in x or y circumstance; you should have said that on your wedding day.
@Rosjier
I see your point, at one level i agree. I would even suggest that God has made it clear that reconciliation is always His first choice in His relationship with us and our relationships with each other. And that we have to learn to forgive or we find no peace or forgiveness for ourselves.
However, when a man abuses, neglects, abandons [emotional or physical] his wife [ and usually his children too] then it is he who has broken the contract/committment/vows and it is wrong of you to suggest she should then have to live the rest of her life without the comfort of a spouse. It was God who said “it is not good that man should live alone”
Bruce, yes I am familar with the betrothal argument, the problem is that porneia is not typically used that way in rabbinic debates. It would be odd if Christ used the language of the Shammai school used in the same context but mean’t something different.
Rosijer not sure I understand why you think a women is not free to remarry, Paul seems to use that explict language in Corinthans. Note also that God actually divorces Isreal in the OT when they consistently fail to keep their marriage vows, so its hard to see how one can claim you are always obligated to do so even when the other party unrepentantly and consistently fails to do so.
So Matt are you therefore saying that as you believe a passage of scripture is used in an uncommon way and contrary to the position to that you hold, you can take an interpretation of that passage that places it in conflict with other passages?
According to your reading Christ is wrong as man can undo the bond of marriage?
Rosijer is 100% correct that serial marriage is Adultery. And Matt you are right Paul does explicitly state that we are not free to re-marry (serial Marriage !) in Corinthians.
Marriage is not a contract, and while God divorced Israel, He did not go off and re-marry forgoing the covenant He made. He still honors the covenant with his chosen people.
Marriage is not a contract, and while God divorced Israel, He did not go off and re-marry forgoing the covenant He made. He still honors the covenant with his chosen people.
Are you quite sure about this Bruce.
Last i looked God allowed the Jews to significantly persecute the new Christian community driving witness and envangelism out among the gentiles instead. In addition subsequent to the crucifixion and the persecution of new Christians God executed judgement on Israel witht the destruction of the temple and Israel perpetrated by the Romans in and around AD70.
I’d say Israel has been pretty thoroughly divorced and God has prepared himself a new bride “The Church”.
The old covenant is redundant and a new covenant of redeemption through grace and Jesus Christ is now in place and available to all including the Jewish people. To propose anything else to is to deny that Christ’s work fulfilled the requirements of the law and completely satisfied God’s justice.
“If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” 1 Tim 5:8
Perhaps not the most common verse to use with respect to divorce, but when thinking of abuse, neglect, abandonment it has some pretty strong things to say about a husband who doesnt treat his wife and children properly. He has abandoned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. The wife is surely free to leave and remarry in these ircumstances, death dissolves marriage.
@ Rosjier & Bruce Cameron
I lost my faith on account of thinking that God must be an absolute mongrel if he demands women to stay with abusive husbands.
(Also, if you’re gonna be damed as an adulteress if you leave an abusive husband, wouldn’t it be much more satisfying to murder him first? I mean, you’re damned either way, right?)
In fact, if God is real, and he really condemns a woman who leaves an abusive husband – then I will in all honesty say F*** YOU GOD. I refuse to worship a god who is so cruel, even if he is all-powerful, because I would ONLY ever worship a god who is good.
The god you speak of isn’t good. He’s an asshole.
And anyone who’d worship such a cruel god, is either ruled by fear, or just plain horrible.
Matt – great blog. Thank you for writing it; you guys know how much I’ve struggled with this exact point. Really appreciate it.
@Matt
I presume this is the passage you are referring to:
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
It seems quite clear that verse 10 applies in most cases and not verse 15.
In v15 is he not talking about being abandoned because of your (new found) faith?
If not please tell us when does v10 apply? When must you “remain unmarried”?
@Jeremy
“However, when a man abuses, neglects, abandons [emotional or physical] his wife [ and usually his children too] then it is he who has broken the contract/commitment/vows and it is wrong of you to suggest she should then have to live the rest of her life without the comfort of a spouse.”
When I suggest something; stating it is wrong, is not a counter argument.
Just because living “without the comfort of a spouse” is hard, does not mean that God would not ask that of us.
Marriage is all about; putting all your eggs in one Basket, loving the other person, being faithful, wanting to see them flourish, no matter what – Even if they don’t keep their promise to you.
@Blondie
We are talking about remarriage; God, Bruce, and I would not expect someone to stay in a situation where they are being abused by their spouse.
@ Bruce
I see that you have not included my comment wrt 1 Tim 5:8 in your response.
As i pointed out death dissolves marriage, and the husband who abuses, neglecys or abandons his wife and family has abandoned his faith and is worse than an unbeliever, he is as one dead and damned.
I think “abandoned his faith and is worse than an unbeliever” means dead, ie without the life of the spirit and worse off than ever for having rejected the grace he has known. A wife is not obliged to stay married or committed to a dead man.[ Infact elsewhere Paul recommends that widows remarry].
With reference to the passage you have just quoted, i would not accept that any protestations such a man made that he wanted his wife to stay counted for anything. Wanting to retain power to abuse or exploit is not the same as wanting to work at a marriage.
I suggest to you that abuse, neglect and abandonment go way beyond a failure to keep a promise made and well into repudiation/rejection of that promise.
WRT verses 10 & 11 you quoted, there is a simpler understanding. Sometimes marriages fail or people find they just dont get on or dont work at it as they should, people who “choose” to separate for these kind of reasons are to reconcile or remain single. This is clearly not the same as when one spouse rejects the faith and repudiates any meaningful concept of marriage.
One of the things i have always found ironic about debate around this subject is that it is almost invariably men who take and express the hardest line on this, and it is almost invariably women who get to suffer when that hard line is promoted. I wonder if there is any reason for this?
@ Bruce
sorry my last response should have been @ Rosjier
So if one spouse abuses the other the victim spouse is allowed to leave but must remain alone for the rest of their life?
I share Blondie’s intuition that that is unjust. The victim spouse gets a lifelong punishment for the abusive spouse’s actions.
Someone whose first marriage came to an end due to the death of one spouse can remarry, why not someone whose marriage came to an end due to the violence and abuse of one spouse? The culpability level on each seems the same to me in a way it does not when two people just give up on their marriage because it got too hard. The two ‘surviving’ spouses in the first two examples are free to remarry. Especially so when you consider that you can remarry for adultery – apparently cheating is worse than rape, bruises and broken bones?!?! My reading of the bible is that it is elsewhere pretty harsh on rape, bruises, broken bones and adultery.
Can you please set our your theological case for why my intuition is wrong? Matt’s case strikes me as pretty sound.
I am interested because before I married Matt I had two children to a violent and abusive man so if you are right then I am an adulterer for marrying Matt.
Absolute rubbish Madeleine, when a man treats a women that way, there is no marriage.
”So Matt are you therefore saying that as you believe a passage of scripture is used in an uncommon way and contrary to the position to that you hold, you can take an interpretation of that passage that places it in conflict with other passages?”
No Bruce I did not say this, you’ll see that what I did say is you should take all the passages on this topic into account and read it in context
”According to your reading Christ is wrong as man can undo the bond of marriage?
Rosijer is 100% correct that serial marriage is Adultery. “
No I simply read that in context, the text states
“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
First, the passage dooes not say man “cannot” undo the bond of marriage its says people should not.
Second, was responding to the question “is it lawful to divorce his wife for any reason”. I noted that this wording, in the context of rabbinical debates means Christ is asking to comment on the liberal proposal that its ok to divorce ones wife for “any reason” as opposed to merely adultery. So Christ’s answer is to that question.
Third, the appeal to Genesis was not novel with Christ, this line of argument is made by other Jewish groups of the time, in contexts where it quite evidently does not mean an absolute total ban on divorce.
Fourth, you ignore what follows the passage “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Here Jesus says that although Genesis states that people should not break up the marriage bond. Because some humans are “hard hearted” a phrase which is used throughout scripture to refer to repeated unrepentant failure to keep a covenant, God permits divorce.
”And Matt you are right Paul does explicitly state that we are not free to re-marry (serial Marriage !) in Corinthians.”
Actually the passage I refered to in corinthans states
”If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.”
I noted the phraseology “not bound” reflects the wording of Jesus divorce certificates, which state a person is not bound to their husband but free to remarry. This text states then that one is free to remarry if they are abandoned. They are not “bound” to the previous spouse.
Here is the problem, if Christ was saying that divorce and remarriage is only acceptable when premartial sex before the marriage occurs. Paul contradicts him.
One can also ask why Jesus uses language the same as was commonly used to express the claim one is divorce and remarry in cases of post marital adultery, when commenting on the very same passage the conservatives did when they said this, but in fact mean’t something totally different. This has no plausibility.
”Marriage is not a contract, ”
Actually it is the word translated covenant has the same meaning as contract. This is all documented in Instone Brewers book.
“Marriage is not a contract, and while God divorced Israel, He did not go off and re-marry forgoing the covenant He made. He still honors the covenant with his chosen people.” I think Jeremy deals with this, but I would not what scripture states is that God gave Isreal a “certificate of divorce”. In Ancient Isreal, and contemporary Judaism, one divorces ones wife by giving them a certificate of divorce which states “you are free to marry another”. So the suggestion God divorced Isreal and also that remarriage was ruled out does not really add up.
Rosjier, yes the passage is in first Corinthans 7, I maintain that Corinthans 7:15 allows divorce and remarriage in cases of abandonment. You ask “In v15 is he not talking about being abandoned because of your (new found) faith? If not please tell us when does v10 apply?
First, note Paul is giving “commands” to members of the Corinthan Church, hence he addressing believers. Moreover, the context is not (like Jesus) Judaism but gentile culture, in which one divorced ones spouse by abandoning them V 10-12 is a command to the married believers, that is situations where both spouses are Christians.
V 10 Paul commands women to not abandon there husbands. It says nothing about what the response is for people who have been abandoned.
V 11 Paul commands women who have abandoned there spouse to not remarry but to reconcile. Again it says nothing to a person who has been abandoned.
V 13, addresses situations where a believer has an unbelieving spouse. V 13, he commands believers to not divorce, provided the unbeliever agrees to stay.
V 15, is the only passage that deals with abandonment, it states that when a believer has been a abandoned, the other spouse, has left and refuses to come back, they are “not bound” that is they are free from their marital commitment.
The overall point is clear, Christians should try and stay committed to their marriage but if the other spouse is not committed and refuses to keep the vows they are free to remarry
Someone might object that v 15 this deals only with believers who have been abandoned by an unbeliever. I think however this fails to appreciate the whole point, if the person is a believer and abandoned there spouse, Paul has already commanded them in v 10-11 to return and so a believer will be willing to be reconciled if they follow Pauls instructions. An unbeliever however is outside the church and hence Paul cannot demand they return. Hence the case of the unbeliever is the only case dealing with a person has violated there vows and will not reconcile or repent of doing so.
Let me make a final point here, you suggest v 15 is a case where a believer is abandoned for your “new found faith”. The problem is in Matt 19 Jesus said “anyone who divorces his wife except for sexual immorality” commits adultery if they are remarried. If you take this as an unqualified statement, then Paul in v 15 is contradicting Christ by allowing remarriage in a situation which Christ did not. Only if Christs words are not meant to be taken in an unqualified sense, can this position be coherent.
I am pretty traditional and conservative, and have always thought that divorce is only allowed for adultery and abandonment, until this year. I know someone who has an abusive spouse. They get drunk and start throwing things around, at least once falling on their 2-year old. Luckily someone was around so he would not crush the child with his huge body. He is getting worse and I’m sure someday soon would throw something at his kids or throw them down, or against a wall, and either kill them or cause permanent brain damage. Luckily, last week, the woman filed for divorce. I’m sorry to my conservative friends, but it’s impossible to believe that God wanted this woman, with very vulnerable children, to stay in this situation. If you believe God can forgive serial killers and child molesters, but not this woman, then you’ve got a screw loose!
Thanks Jim, for those who did not follow it, the old testament passage which rabbi’s assumed applied is the following
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
Here the female servant, is a women who is bethrothed to a man, probably as a concubine. The text affirms she is “free to go” if she is not provided with food, clothing and martial rights. A few passages latter the torah states
“An owner who hits a male or female servant in the eye and destroys it must let the servant e go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female servant must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth..
It was inconcievable that a servant here would have more rights than a wife.
• I would NOT advise anyone to stay with an abusive spouse. Get away from the abusive person !
• The act of re-marriage is different to the prior act of divorce. Just like a young girl who makes a mistake and gets pregnant out of wedlock, will have to make another separate mistake if she decides to have an abortion to remedy it.
Getting a divorce does not give the freedom from the convent of the first marriage, to subsequently re-marry and enter another convent.
• Many good natured people begin with the premise that it will be too hard to not have the option to re-marry following a ‘well meaning’ or ‘justified’ divorce. So they think that surely God would not want or mean people to have to stay single for the rest of their lives if this happens. Wrong, God’s ways are hard to live by.
Look at all of scripture. There is only one interruption that works without scriptural conflict. I have been looking for another but have yet to find one. However such a blog is not the forum that I will work through. If you are in Tauranga sometime I am happy to meet for a discussion over coffee (br***********@xt**.nz).
Mat 10:14.
@ Bruce, thats just a wee bit arrogant to put Mat 10:14 at the end of your last comment.
The whole point of Matt’s post has been to put things into context, a context most of us weren’t aware of. Not to justify frivolous divorce and remarriage, but that shows a God who is more compassionate and understanding than simple and uninformed reaing of the text might lead us to believe.
I also notice you still havent responded to my points concerning death dissolving marriage and what Paul had to say in 1 Tim.
You are quite right, God’s ways can be hard to live by, that is not the same as us making then unnecessarily hard because we refuse to learn context and thoroughly search out scripture.
Acts 17:11
“Look at all of scripture. There is only one interruption [interpretation] that works without scriptural conflict”
I dissagree, i think your hardline interpretation [ and refusal to learn context] conflicts strongly with the revealed character and grace of God.
As Matt notes your position leaves Christ and Paul in conflict , learning more of the context resolves that conflict.
“I would NOT advise anyone to stay with an abusive spouse. Get away from the abusive person !”
That makes no sense on your position, marriage is a covenant where both partners agree to live together in a certain kind of relationship. Your suggesting when a spouse is abused she is not bound by this agreement and can leave, but she is bound and cannot remarry. Its hard to see what sense this makes. If the women is bound to her marriage vows then she cannot leave. If she can leave she is not bound because in her marriage she agreed to live with the man in question.
“The act of re-marriage is different to the prior act of divorce. ..
Getting a divorce does not give the freedom from the convent of the first marriage, to subsequently re-marry and enter another convent.” Sorry but in the context in which Jesus spoke this is simply false, in Jewish custom to divorce ones spouse just is to give her the legal right to remarry, divorce in fact involved giving ones spouse a legal licence to marry another. That is what divorce involved. In Jesus’s ( or Pauls) context one could not claim that one had divorced but did not have a right to remarry.
I take it you also will shake the dust of your feet at Moses who allowed a women to be free from a neglectful spouse and also Paul who said an abandoned spouse is “not bound” to the marriage.
Christ is cited as condemning it without qualification in Mark and Luke, and with a qualification of “for porneia” in Matthew. So you must shake the dust of your feet at Matthew as well or you are welcome to state Christ contradicted himself if you wish,
Your also welcome to state that Christ used the same words and arguments, that were often used in rabbinical debates, in the same context, but mean’t something totally different, your also welcome to ignore the fact that rabbinical debates are often recorded in an abbreviated fashion precisely the way Matt 19 and Mark are when compared to each other. But don’t pretend any of this makes your position credible.
You have not addressed any of this, people who simply assert some position, accuse others of supporting “serial marriages” ( do you really think allowing divorce for abuse is the same as serial monogamy?) and then claiming you are on par with persecuted apostles simply demonstrates your own lack of humility.
” I would NOT advise anyone to stay with an abusive spouse. Get away from the abusive person !
“The act of re-marriage is different to the prior act of divorce. Just like a young girl who makes a mistake and gets pregnant out of wedlock, will have to make another separate mistake if she decides to have an abortion to remedy it.
Getting a divorce does not give the freedom from the convent of the first marriage, to subsequently re-marry and enter another convent. ”
Think you made a Freudian slip there Bruce – from the sounds of the rest of your argument, you actually WOULD put previously beaten wives in a convent.
Regardless. How can you say, oh, its ok for a woman to leave her marriage – but just not to remarry. Whilst a woman nowadays might be able to work and thus support herself and her children, I somehow doubt that was an option for many women in biblical times. Her family might have looked after her for a while, but I’d guess that – just like Ruth and other widows – the average woman’s best bet would be remarriage.
And how can you compare a woman who gets abused within her marriage, to a young girl who “makes the mistake” of getting pregnant out of wedlock. Are you suggesting that the battered wife made a mistake by getting beaten? Or married to the wrong man? I’m very, very offended by this insinuation – as I believe the blame should lie with the one who is violent or abusive – not with the victim.
I daresay that any JUST God would see it the same way.
Adultery annuls a marriage. The two shall become one flesh; the act therefore brings a third flesh [or more] into the marriage.
Forgiveness annuls adultery and a marriage can survive if there is a will.
Separation provides a fertile field for adultery. Hence Jesus stating ‘and marries another, commits adultery’
Paul states the unbelieving is sanctified by the believer –else were your children unclean. He recognised the fact that an unbelieving spouse has two options, stay with the believer or clear out and do whatever. The believer has only one, stay with the willing unbeliever or if they are abandoned then the unbeliever has taken that choice for themselves. Therefore the believer is not bound.
Bound to what? That is the question. The mortgage? Mutual debts? The bonds of marriage to a person who has renounced them by their actions and who in all likelihood is headed for another relationship which is not going to be a platonic one?
The future is not known. Though the best of good will can be shown in waiting for a departed spouse to come to their senses, change their life and return, it doesn’t always happen.
God’s relationship with Israel is shown in Hosea. An unfaithful wife who spreads herself around, has a bunch of kids by a variety of men, gets in real strife and God woos her back and re-instates her. Gomer the wife is to be considered an unfaithful believer.
In Ezrah, Jeremiah and Nehemiah unbelieving wives were forcibly booted out, not to come back.
In Deuteronomy a divorced wife who had married another was prevented from coming back to her husband, described as defiled, and the act of taking them back termed an abomination to the Lord.
Here’s my take on what appears to be contradictions all round both testaments. Adultery is legal grounds for total divorce. OK you want the law, take all of it. Love fulfills the law.
You want grace? Show some. The thing about grace is that it is freely given, not compulsory. You are free in the case of abandonment by an unbeliever and also adultery by a believer. But you’re free and not condemned one way or the other. You don’t know the future and you’re not shackled to a carcass. God may pleasantly surprise you as in the case of Hosea or your life may take an entire different turn. Either way it’s His gift but your choice. Behold old things have passed away, all things have become new.
Sure George, but adultery isn’t the worst thing a spouse can do.
Seriously – I could forgive someone cheating on me, if they were really sorry, and if they were prepared to do whatever necesssary to ensure it didn’t happen again. And I could do the work myself, to help them be satisfied with just me, and to help them to be less inclined to cheat on me.
But I couldn’t stay with someone who beat me, or the kids. No matter how sorry they are (and they ALWAYS are). I wouldn’t feel safe with them. I couldn’t trust them with the kids.
And how would I know when CYFS were gonna end up on my doorstep to take the kids away, if word got out that my husband was beating me up? That’s the reality, and a huge incentive to leave (no matter what the bible says about it).
Seriously – I still think any god that expects people to stay with an abusive partner is either an asshole, or invented by MEN who want to force their wives to stay with them in spite of their abuse.
Blondie, the irony here is that, in context, Christ was addressing men who had developed a theology where they could divorce their wives simply because they wanted to trade them in. Christ’s words were, in fact, a condemnation of men mistreating women.
I agree with your point though about adultery; one asks why does adultery “break the marriage bond”? The answer is obvious. Adultery is a violation of one party to the covenant. Both parties agree to sexual fidelity to each other; by commiting adultery one party violates this trust.
What’s odd is that it is pretty evident that adultery is not the only action that does this, desertion would also constitute a betrayal of the covenant, as would certain forms of abuse and neglect.
Greeetings,
“Can you please set your theological case for why my intuition is wrong?”
I will first do this and then attempt to answer your questions. I asked advice yesterday and then found out: The main truth everyone has missed is that marriage between two pagans is fundamentally different to that of two believers.
A marriage at an altar with promises made before God is different.
“Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Mark 10:9
A Marriage between two pagans is not joined by God, as they did not marry in God’s presence.
So when Paul talks about being ‘not bound’ it is only to someone who has never been a believer, and a marriage that has not been blessed by God.
So if one has married and then converted, and that persons spouse has not the reading of Corinthians makes perfect sense.
Also when Jesus says “except for the case of sexual immorality” I do believe he is referring to pre-marital sex, the kind that the other spouse doesn’t know about until after the wedding. In this case it is not a case of God dissolving a bond he made, because He would not have made it; as both parties did not come together in good faith.
@Jeremy
“If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” 1 Tim 5:8
“Death dissolves marriage, and the husband who abuses, neglects or abandons his wife and family has abandoned his faith and is worse than an unbeliever, he is as one dead and damned.
“I think “abandoned his faith and is worse than an unbeliever” means dead, ie without the life of the spirit and worse off than ever for having rejected the grace he has known. A wife is not obliged to stay married or committed to a dead man.[ In fact elsewhere Paul recommends that widows remarry].
With reference to the passage you have just quoted, i would not accept that any protestations such a man made that he wanted his wife to stay counted for anything.”
I apologise for not addressing this earlier, I simply missed it. I don’t think it is sound. When marriage vows are taken, it is pretty obvious that people are talking about a death of the body and not death of the Spirit. Otherwise you could divorce someone as soon as they commit any serious sin, even if it has nothing to do with you. (eg. if they hate their brother.)
“WRT verses 10 & 11 you quoted, there is a simpler understanding. Sometimes marriages fail or people find they just don’t get on or don’t work at it as they should; people who “choose” to separate for these kinds of reasons are to reconcile or remain single. This is clearly not the same as when one spouse rejects the faith and repudiates any meaningful concept of marriage.”
No, it is not the same, and no these kinds of reasons are not sufficient for a divorce even with out re-marriage.
“One of the things I have always found ironic about debate around this subject is that it is almost invariably men who take and express the hardest line on this, and it is almost invariably women who get to suffer when that hard line is promoted. I wonder if there is any reason for this?”
I was about to ask my wife this question, but before I did I told her about the fact Madeleine had posted, and her response made it clear. Just like if there was a war on our country it is the mans duty to protect the family, and the country. And now there is a war on truth it is only natural for men to stand up and fight for what is right – the same thing happens in the abortion debate.
——————
@ Madeleine
“So if one spouse abuses the other the victim spouse is allowed to leave but must remain alone for the rest of their life?”
Not necessarily. It depends on a few things. First were the two people who married baptised believers? If so God would have joined them in an inseparable bond if the marriage was indeed valid. There are many things that can make a marriage invalid:
Both people must be capable of being married and free of any impediment (obstacle) that would prevent marriage. Anyone who is incapable of understanding what marriage is and the responsibilities that come with it cannot enter marriage. No one can be forced into marriage, either directly or because of some “grave fear.” They should have come freely and without reservation to give themselves to each other in marriage. They also must have meant it when they said they will love and honor each other as husband and wife for the rest of their lives.
So even if both members were believers, there are many things that may have invalidated their marriage (this paragraph is by no means exhaustive)
“Someone whose first marriage came to an end due to the death of one spouse can remarry, why not someone whose marriage came to an end due to the violence and abuse of one spouse?”
Presuming the marriage is valid: Because they have taken an oath. “Death do us part”
“The culpability level on each seems the same to me in a way it does not when two people just give up on their marriage because it got too hard. The two ‘surviving’ spouses in the first two examples are free to remarry. Especially so when you consider that you can remarry for adultery – apparently cheating is worse than rape, bruises and broken bones?!?!”
No. I do not believe someone can simply leave there spouse because of adultery; and if they did I do not believe they can re-marry.
“My reading of the bible is that it is elsewhere pretty harsh on rape, bruises, broken bones and adultery.”
Agreed
“I am interested because before I married Matt I had two children to a violent and abusive man so if you are right then I am an adulterer for marrying Matt.”
I am in no place to judge this. This is between you, your conscience, your spouse and God.
——————
@Matt
“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
“First, the passage does not say man “cannot” undo the bond of marriage it says people should not.”
I think this is a bad point, it’s more like: let no one even try and separate them.
“Fourth, you ignore what follows the passage “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Here Jesus says that although Genesis states that people should not break up the marriage bond; Because some humans are “hard hearted” a phrase which is used throughout scripture to refer to repeated unrepentant failure to keep a covenant, God permits divorce.”
Again I agree with you, just not your conclusion “God permits divorce.” I believe Jesus is calling us back to the beginning and asking us not to have hard hearts.
“This text states then that one is free to remarry if they are abandoned.”
No; only in the case where the marriage was with an unbeliever, or rather someone who never believed.
“Here is the problem, if Christ was saying that divorce and remarriage is only acceptable when premarital sex before the marriage occurs. Paul contradicts him.”
No because Christ is talking about a marriage between two believers.
“One can also ask why Jesus uses language the same as was commonly used to express the claim one is divorce and remarry in cases of post marital adultery, when commenting on the very same passage the conservatives did when they said this, but in fact meant something totally different. This has no plausibility.”
Please re-phrase this.
Do you mean In the time of Jesus when one says “the case of sexual immorality” this commonly was used to express casses of both premarital sex and post marital adultery?
I admit I will need to look into this further, though I do not fully grasp your point.
“V 10-12 is a command to the married believers, that is situations where both spouses are Christians.”
Well said – this was my point also 🙂 in cases where both are
Christians this applies:
“A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.”
But when both are not this applies:
But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances.
And they then can re-marry, I concede in this situation, because I do not believe that God has joined them together on their wedding day as they were not believers.
“Someone might object that v 15 this deals only with believers who have been abandoned by an unbeliever. I think however this fails to appreciate the whole point, if the person is a believer and abandoned there spouse, Paul has already commanded them in v 10-11 to return and so a believer will be willing to be reconciled if they follow Paul’s instructions. An unbeliever however is outside the church and hence Paul cannot demand they return. Hence the case of the unbeliever is the only case dealing with a person has violated there vows and will not reconcile or repent of doing so.”
I think that’s weak. It seems more straight forward if the dependency lies in the persons faith and if God has (or even been asked to) bless(ed) the marriage.
“Let me make a final point here, you suggest v 15 is a case where a believer is abandoned for your “new found faith”. The problem is in Matt 19 Jesus said “anyone who divorces his wife except for sexual immorality” commits adultery if they are remarried. If you take this as an unqualified statement, then Paul in v 15 is contradicting Christ by allowing remarriage in a situation which Christ did not. Only if Christ’s words are not meant to be taken in an unqualified sense, can this position be coherent.”
Allow me to re-state that Jesus is talking about two believers; Paul does not contradict him in the slightest as he is talking about two pagans who of whom has converted.
This is what you said to Bruce:
“That makes no sense on your position, marriage is a covenant where both partners agree to live together in a certain kind of relationship. Your suggesting when a spouse is abused she is not bound by this agreement and can leave, but she is bound and cannot remarry. It’s hard to see what sense this makes. If the women is bound to her marriage vows then she cannot leave. If she can leave she is not bound because in her marriage she agreed to live with the man in question.”
No. As I said before the vow is not about “live together in a certain kind of relationship” but to love the other and be faithful to the other as best as one can. In a situation where there is abuse, the best most loving and faithful thing may be to separate (physically). For the sake of the Spiritual union between them to remain in tact, in the hope that it can be reconciled, However marrying another can never be the faithful thing to do.
“Adultery annuls a marriage. The two shall become one flesh; the act therefore brings a third flesh [or more] into the marriage.”
I disagree. Annulment means that the marriage never took place, (this is where Jesus “except in the case of” comes in) if it was in fact at the time of the wedding an invalid marriage. It is not about dissolving a marriage that exists. Otherwise whenever someone wanted to marry a younger prettier girl, they could just annul their marriage through adultery.
“I agree with your point (George’s point) though about adultery; one asks why does adultery “break the marriage bond”? The answer is obvious. Adultery is a violation of one party to the covenant. Both parties agree to sexual fidelity to each other; by committing adultery one party violates this trust.”
I disagree, I don’t ask that question. Paul asks us to love our wives as Christ loves the church and gave his life up for her. This clearly shows that we must love them even if they do not keep their promise to us.
“What’s odd is that it is pretty evident that adultery is not the only action that does this, desertion would also constitute a betrayal of the covenant, as would certain forms of abuse and neglect.”
As I have stated before, I do not believe that even adultery allows one who is a believer and married a believer to divorce and remarry, and neither does anything else.
I admit I do not know the finer points of the Greek of “except in the case of sexual immorality” in Jesus’ time. However I am more than confident that it will not be so compelling that I change my mind.
Love and God Bless,
Rosjier
I am no theologian, so excuse me while I make some practical points.
1. In this conversation we have been arguing about non frivolous reasons for divorce — adultery, neglect and abuse (which is worse than neglect). Most people agree that those are reasonable…
2. However, in our society we have no fault divorce. Wifes and Husbands have no penalties for trading up — indeed they can enrich themselves by doing so. Our divorce rate is too high.
3. Divorces hurt. They hurt the partner, they hurt the kids.
4. If you are a solo parent (which I am) then you have to think about your children. It would be terribly wrong for me to go out and date and bring home a woman… (which is something I have to remind myself regularly, because being solo and alone is quite difficult). I have to think about how this woman would affect not only me but my children.
Many in our leadership seem to believe you can do 2 and 4 and hurt no one. This is a frank lie.
I find Paul practical. He encourages remarriage for the younger widows (and, probably the divorced) because it is much better that they raise a family than be idle. He limited to roll of widows to those without sons who were over 60. Families were told to look after their own first.
Our newer rules have led to many women being abandoned. They have led to many men refusing to have anything to do with women (because they do not want to be pauperised by child support). Our society has moving rapidly to the position where God (who is consistent) would divorce us.
There is a duty in the church to take marital disharmony seriously. I don’t think we are doing that.
So I don’t think Mads is an adulteress. Her husband was not a believer — as demonstrated by his actions. She is not bound to be faithful to a relationship that is dead. However, I would say that remarriage with kids is a step to take very carefully… and before you are head over heels in lust with her.
This has been so enlightening. I have always wanted to have proper sound teaching from a truly biblical perspective on this topic. No one has ever answered the questions I have had about this with such clarity. Thanks so much!
[…] and Violence Contra Mundum: Stoning Adulterers Contra Mundum: Why Does God Allow Suffering? Contra Mundum: “Till Death do us Part” Christ’s Teachings on Abuse, Divorce and Remarriage Contra Mundum: Is God a 21st Century Western Liberal? Contra Mundum: In Defence of Santa Contra […]
[…] and Violence Contra Mundum: Stoning Adulterers Contra Mundum: Why Does God Allow Suffering? Contra Mundum: “Till Death do us Part” Christ’s Teachings on Abuse, Divorce and Remarriage Contra Mundum: Is God a 21st Century Western Liberal? Contra Mundum: In Defence of Santa Contra […]
Matt,
Thanks for referring to your post after linking to my post in the Christian Carnival. I found Instone-Brewer’s analysis to be extremely helpful in exploring the cultural context. While I come very close to his position on the practical/pastoral level, I found his actual argument to be unpersuasive in the end and I’d want to and some qualifications to his conclusions.
In the coming weeks I’ll be addressing all of the texts of concern on this matter and hope to show that Jesus’ demands are still for perfection – ’til death do us part’ – while allowing that the truly right thing to do is not always the ideal in a fallen and broken world.
Carl, I’ll be interested in what you have to write. I am inclined to reject arguments which say Christ taught X but in practice we need to do not X, when one says this it does sound like one is saying Christ really got it wrong or what he says is impractical. So I look forward to your discussion.
As to Brewer, I agree with his position, I have issues with some of the ways he expresses it and specific applications of it he appears to endorse.
Matt, I was browsing your site for materials on apologetics, and was pleasantly surprised to come to this article. I am one of those Anne’s and am privileged to know many of them. We are sick of being seen to be theologically unsound because we quote Instone-Brewer just because the well-known heavyweights don’t agree. It’s very validating to hear a sound philosopher and theologian agree with Instone-Brewer. Have you read or reviewed Barbara Roberts’ “Not Under Bondage – Divorce for Adultery, Desertion and Abuse”?
Thanks CA, I have not read that book. It probably will go on the list of many I need to read. Let me just add that what I appreciate about Instone Brewer’s work is that its exegetically sound, brings consistency into the canon, as well as being pastorally realistic. To often people pit these things against each other Brewer suggests the context of Jesus’s words make that totally unnecessary.
Helpful post. The only part that gets it wrong is this: “it avoids the extreme permissiveness of our modern no-fault culture, where women are abandoned to single parenthood at the whim of a man’s lust (and sometimes vice versa).” There’s no “sometimes” about the vice versa. Statistically, women are initiating 75-80% of all divorces now. And virtually every divorce I’ve observed among Christian couples (I can count into the double digits with little effort, including my own, after 29+ years and four kids) has been initiated at the wife’s whim.
@Matt
Hi Matt.
Just wanting to get a bit more clarity. Sorry, some of these posts go in so many different directions that it is hard to keep track and understand it all. I get quite confused.. What if a believing woman, married in a church, to another believer, is refused conjugal rights by her husband and after trying everything he still refuses to change or work on things/seek help medically or otherwise? If she then gets a divorce (after years of this going on) what is the go with that regarding remarriage? Free or not? Would it make a difference if the husband was not a believer? The other issue/point I get stuck on is the other part of Jesus’ response saying that ‘whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery’. So even if a woman is divorced by her husband, even without being guilty of adultery herself etc, that would suggest that she is still stuck through no fault of her own? It seems cruel. I am not looking for an ear tickle, I just want the truth, whatever that may be. I am tired of being confused. EVERYBODY ELSE, PLEASE NOTE I AM ADDRESSING MY QUESTION TO MATT – NOBODY ELSE.