People often think Jesus said adultery was the only grounds for divorce, but we’ve misunderstood what Jesus said in Matthew 19 because we haven’t understood the cultural background. When the Pharisees tested Jesus by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” they were alluding to a dispute between two rabbinic schools, the Hillelite school and the Shammaite school. If we listen to the phrase “any cause” as if we were Jesus’ audience in the first century AD who were familiar with that dispute between the rabbis, it makes an enormous difference to our understanding of the passage.
To understand another society takes time and thought, so bear with me while I describe the cultural background.
It’s important to realize that both schools of rabbis (Hillelites and Shammaites) assumed the first verse of Deuteronomy chapter 24 was an entitling law which expressly permitted a man to divorce his wife. The only difference between the two schools was this: Hillelites said it allowed a man to divorce his wife for “any matter,” whereas Shammaites said it only allowed a man to divorce his wife for adultery / sexual immorality.
David Instone-Brewer has shown that in Jesus’ day, the Jews saw grounds for divorce in three different scriptures of the Hebrew Bible:
- Exodus 21:7-11 authorises an abused wife to divorce a husband who neglects her, and because abuse is a form of neglect it allows a wife to divorce an abusive husband. By extension the Jews reasoned that Exodus 21 permits divorce to any spouse (man or woman) if their partner is engaging in a pattern of neglectful or abusive behaviour.
- Genesis 1:28 (be fruitful and multiply) — the Jews believed this permitted a man to divorce his wife if she was barren (infertility was always blamed on the wife).
- Deuteronomy 24:1 — the Jews said this verse permitted men to divorce their wives for either (a) any cause, i.e., anything the husband deemed objectionable about his wife (according to the Hillelites), or (b) the wife’s sexual unfaithfulness or behaviour inviting adultery (according to the Shammaites).
We see from the third bullet point that in Jesus’ day, “divorce for any cause” or “any-matter divorce” was an expression meaning “divorce based on the Hillelite interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1.” The system worked like this. To obtain Hillelite divorce on the ground of Deuteronomy 24:1, the burden of proof was non-existent, “any cause” being so all-embracing that divorce was granted even if the wife burnt the dinner. In contrast, Shammaites required proof of the wife’s adultery /sexual unfaithfulness before granting a divorce based on Deuteronomy 24:1.
Customs and practices in relation to dowry are another important thing to understand about that culture. When a woman got married, her father gave a dowry to the woman’s husband. The dowry was money or assets to be held in trust by the husband as head of the household, but was generally considered the wife’s property in the event of the marriage breaking down. Different types of divorce had different consequences for how the dowry was handled. In Hillelite (“any matter”) divorce, the dowry went to the wife — one of the main purposes of the dowry was to give the woman a kind of nest egg, she could rely on it for her financial security if the marriage terminated. But if the wife was convicted of sexual misconduct in a Shammaite divorce, the woman was penalized by forfeiting her dowry and the dowry remained with the husband as compensation. Because the different interpretations of Deuteronomy 24:1 had different financial implications, the term “any-matter divorce” would have been an extremely well-known expression in Jesus’ day. (The term “any matter divorce” was probably more familiar to first century Jews than the term “no-fault divorce” is for us today).
Men did not always use the Shammaite method when seeking divorce for a wife’s sexual unfaithfulness. A man might use the Hillelite method if he suspected his wife had been sexually unfaithful but didn’t have enough evidence to prove it in a Shammaite court. He might choose the Hillelite route if he couldn’t be bothered proving that his wife had been sexually unfaithful — he might figure that the value of the dowry would be too small to justify expensive litigation. Another reason he might choose the Hillelite route was to avoid shaming his wife in a public trial — it appears Joseph contemplated using the Hillelite method to avoid publicly humiliating Mary when he realised she was pregnant. Thus, a man might use either the Shammaite or the Hillelite method when obtaining divorce for his wife’s adultery: the Shammaite method for proven adultery; the Hillelite method for unproven adultery. A man might also use the Hillelite method for any other conduct or characteristic (imagined or real) that the man deemed objectionable in his wife.
When the Pharisees asked Jesus “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?”, they meant “Who has the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1 — the Hillelites or the Shammaites?” They were trying to trap Jesus into publicly saying that one side was correct. They had figured out that if they could get him to publicly take a side in the controversy, they would have gotten ammunition with which to confound his enterprise. No matter what side he favoured, they could have shaped his answer into a curved dagger which they could use to malign his reputation and undermine his ability to reach audiences. They were trying to muzzle, discredit and silence him (a malevolent agenda which is all too familiar to victims of intimate partner abuse!). Jesus was facing a trap question from enemies.
Moreover, the Pharisees’ question dealt only with competing interpretations of Deuteronomy 24:1, and not with the other scriptural rationales for divorce recognized by the Jews (the first and second bullet points above). The debate was not about the fact that Exodus 21:7-11 authorises an abused wife to divorce a hard-hearted husband. Nor was it about divorce for infertility.
For these two reasons (the trap, and the restricted topic of the debate), it is highly unlikely that Jesus would have answered them with a comprehensive teaching on all aspects of divorce and remarriage. So we must not think that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 is a global teaching about ALL kinds of divorce. Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 does not trump or override the other Bible passages that teach about the permissibility of divorce — Exodus 21, and 1 Corinthians 7:15.
In my book Not Under Bondage I argue that Jesus took neither side of the Shammaite / Hillelite debate; rather, he condemned both sides.
I make the case that Jesus showed that the Hillelites and the Shammaites were both wrong when they assumed that verse one of Deuteronomy 24 was an entitling law, an express permission for a man to divorce his wife.
To prove that both schools were wrong, Jesus first quoted the “one flesh” teaching from Genesis 2:24 (the creation paradigm for marriage) and declared its implication: “What God has joined together, let no man separate.” Then Jesus said, “Because of your hardness of heart, Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”
Let us read that sentence again with some words in bold:
Because of your hardness of heart, Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”
By the words Jesus chose, he was clearly referring to men’s hardness of heart. The gender of the sentence is clear. And this is consistent with the Mosaic regulation, for if we read the passage in its entirety (Deuteronomy 24 verses one to four) we find it was given to restrain hardhearted men and protect women from abuse. The law can be summed up like this: If a man divorces his wife, he is prohibited from remarrying her after she’s been married to someone else and that second marriage of hers had terminated.
Let us imagine that Bill divorces Mary. Mary then marries Tom, but that marriage also ends (either Tom dies or he divorces her). Bill then remarries Mary.
If Bill were to behave like that, he would be trashing the institution of marriage and showing callous disrespect for Mary. The fact that Bill was prepared to re-marry Mary strongly suggests that she hadn’t done anything worthy of dismissal in the first place, and Bill had been a callous scoundrel to dismiss her. It shows that Bill had been acting selfishly and irresponsibly when he divorced Mary. God does not want the institution of marriage to be treated so lightly. God deplores men acting so selfishly and irresponsibly. No wonder Moses told men, “That is an abomination before the Lord. You shall not bring sin upon the land.” (Deuteronomy 24:4)
In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Moses did not make an indulgent concession to men when he mentioned divorce in verse one; he was merely recognizing that some men were deeming their wives objectionable and divorcing their wives (despite all God’s guidance about how personal relationships ought to be conducted). Moses narrated the ‘case study’ in verses 1-3 (which mentioned the practice of male divorce) in order to promulgate the law in verse four. The regulation aimed to prevent an abominable end-product that sometimes ensued when men hard-heartedly engaged in divorce.
In effect, Jesus told the Pharisees: “Moses did not give this passage in Deuteronomy 24 to license male divorce. He gave it because men were divorcing in hardness of heart and he sought to restrain an abominable end-product of such conduct. From the beginning it was not so. The point of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is not verse one, but verse four. If you (both Hillelites and Shammaites) had interpreted Deuteronomy 24 in the light of Genesis 2, you would never have drawn the conclusions you have!”
Can you hear Jesus’ outrage at the Pharisees? He wasn’t siding with the Shammaite school, as so many commentators have supposed; he was pouring scorn on both schools of Pharisees, the Hillelites AND the Shammaites. No wonder the disciples were so dismayed that they said, “If that is the case, it would be better for a man not to marry!” The (male) disciples were dismayed because Jesus was taking away their privilege! The Pharisees had crafted loopholes of male privilege from Deuteronomy 24:1, and Jesus had just removed those loopholes. Jesus’ declaration left no wriggle room for presumptuous male-entitlement, and he shamed the Pharisees for their twisting of the scriptures. If any Pharisee had a mite of conscience left, he would have been red faced. But most of the Pharisees probably just burned with inward fury.
After delivering that bombshell to men, Jesus went on, “Whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” Reading this in the light of the explanation above, we can tease out and paraphrase Jesus’ meaning. The next four paragraphs are my paraphrase.
I (Jesus) and all the audience of Jews here know that the Hillelites and Shammaites both allow divorce for a wife’s adultery. I agree with the Jewish consensus that adultery is a legitimate ground for divorce and the innocent partner may remarry without incurring guilt. But that doesn’t mean I completely agree with the Shammaites, because the Shammaites have twisted scripture when they say Deuteronomy 24:1 expressly permits divorce for adultery. Deuteronomy 24:1 in itself permits nothing: it is merely pre-law narrative; the law is laid down in Deuteronomy 24:4.
Jews, you all know that the Hillelites put no restrictions on men divorcing their wives, because they count “any matter” as ground for divorce. I’m telling you that, generally speaking, this “any matter” interpretation is a wicked pretext that men are using to divorce good wives.
When a man uses the “any matter” system to divorce an adulterous wife, he is obtaining a legitimate divorce because it’s for adultery, but except for such cases, this “any matter” system is illegitimate. A man who casts off his wife using “any matter” as a pretext for illegitimate divorce, and then marries another woman, is guilty of adultery no matter how nicely the divorce papers have been drawn up and signed by smug Hillelite lawyers!
Men, you can’t legitimise wife-swapping by means of divorce certificates and marriage certificates. it is still wife swapping, and it’s unfair to women! If you do it, you will bring sin on the land!
Sidebar on Deuteronomy 21:10-14
In my book I discuss another Old Testament passage about divorce which Instone-Brewer does not cover. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 gives a law about divorce, and from it we can infer the following principles:
- A husband must not treat his wife brutally.
- A man must not treat his wife as a slave, even if she is a captured prisoner of war, even if she was raised in a heathen / pagan / non-Christian ideology and belief system.
- A man must not treat his wife as a person he can disrespect or demean.
- A man must not treat his wife as someone who has less importance and value than him.
- If a man chooses to divorce his wife because he no longer wants to relate to her as husband-to-wife, he must treat her with the same dignity and respect that he would like to be treated himself in the divorce process.
- This means he must set her free to marry any man she wishes.
- It also means he must not spread false reports about her: if he decides to divorce her because he holds an elevated notion of his personal entitlement (and he therefore gives less value to her person-hood and dignity) he must not falsely accuse her of breaking the tie of wedlock.
The key points from our study of Matthew 19
- Jesus noted that adultery was a valid reason for divorce, but strongly refuted the idea that this was verified by Deuteronomy 24:1.
- Jesus condemned the treacherous divorce enabled by the Hillelites, which in Jesus’ day was being granted without question to men, for any trivial reason.
- In Matthew 19, Jesus’ reply was directed only at the rabbis’ two distortions of Deuteronomy 24:1.
- Jesus made no comment on the other scriptural rationales for divorce which were followed by the Jews.
- Matthew 19 is not a global teaching about all divorce. Therefore it does not trump all other Bible teaching on divorce.
- Jesus never said adultery was the only ground for divorce. It is very sad that this has been misunderstood, giving rise to immense confusion, stigma and hurt.
Read reviews of my book Not Under Bondage
Exodus 21 authorises an abused wife to divorce a hard-hearted husband
If abuse is grounds for divorce, why didn’t God say so plainly in the Bible?
Divorce in Deuteronomy 21 gives dignity and rights to the woman
Post updated January 2025 and October 2025. I added some links, but no substantive changes were made to my argument, only wording changes to remove potential ambiguity and prevent misunderstandings.
[January 18, 2025: Editors’ notes:
—For some comments made prior to January 18, 2025 that quoted from the post, the text in the comment that was quoted from the post might no longer be an exact match.
—For some comments made prior to January 18, 2025 that quoted from the post, the text in the comment that was quoted from the post might no longer be found in the post.
If you would like to compare the text in the comments made prior to January 18, 2025 that quoted from the post to the post as it is now (January 18, 2025), click here [Internet Archive link] for the most recent Internet Archive copy of the post.]
Discover more from A Cry For Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow. Wow . . . I will re-read this again later this afternoon to let it all sink in. I have been afraid of this passage for a long, long time. And it has been used to condemn me over and over . . . Last Sunday, I was afraid the pastor was going to preach on it and I immediately began to panic, but it was a mistake — they mentioned the wrong chapter. I calmed down. I do not want to be afraid of any passage of Scripture because it has been so twisted in our ‘c’hurch culture. Thank you, Barb. Truly.
LikeLike
Truths We Confess: A Layman’s Guide to the Westminster Confession Of Faith…written by R. C. Sproul
Volume Three ( The State, The Family, The Church, And The Last Things)
Chapter 24: Marriage and Divorce (p 39):—
I personally know of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church deposing one of their ministers for abusing his wife, and then re-defining desertion to include abuse in order to allow her to biblically file for the divorce. Yes, it’s looking like the OPC is very rare in the church world, but please, be assured that there are churches that hold to God’s Word.
LikeLike
Thank you very much, Carmen.
LikeLike
Thank you, Carmen!
This is very helpful!
LikeLike
I am in agreement with Megan. So many churches have preached on this. I have been afraid of that passage, too. But thank God for this website and other resources that tell us that abuse in any way is also grounds for divorce. I’m very thankful for Barb’s research on this subject, because it has helped me immensely.
I do want to add that the use of pornography (in my opinion) is just as much adultery as physically cheating. I found it on my ex husband’s computer (he angrily denied it) and… I hate to sound gross, but this is the truth.. I would find pubic hairs on the keyboard. His excuse? He was plucking them. No man in his right mind would sit there and do that. I believed him at first, but some family members reminded me of how painful it would be to do that – and that definitely was not how they ended up on the keyboard. I would also find videos of things that might not be considered “porn,” but were very scantily clad women doing provocative things. In my book, that’s just as bad, because it feeds a man’s lust just the same. He especially seemed to like pole dancing videos… and of course, would ask me to do things like that for him (which I have no clue how to do).
Abuse is spiritual abandonment, plan and simple. And as blunt as I’m being here, the fact is that 99% of those men just don’t change.
LikeLike
Porn is better defined any ANYTHING that a person uses for lustful purposes. Normally a picture of a child would not be considered porn … and yet … to some it is. :-(
LikeLike
Thanks for this teaching again. I have had a difficult time getting people to understand this meaning of Mt 19. Sending them to Instone-Brewer or your book is not practical for most people. I think I will print this up (with full a full citation) and keep in my files. This succinct description is invaluable. It would be helpful if you could further expound on Ex 21:10-11 in a similar way.
Great job Barbara!
LikeLike
Good suggestion, Loren.
And to all our readers: I would be happy for you to share this post on social networking sites and other blogs you might follow. I’m not the greatest at social networking; I use FB, Google+, Pinterest and have just set up my YouTube channel, but I’m not nearly as active on social networking as some people are. There are many other places to share material like this.
LikeLike
I posted it on FB this morning. :)
LikeLike
I am confused.
We recently received our updated church statement of Doctrine and Theology.
It states “we teach that God hates divorce, permitting it ONLY where there has been UNREPENTANT sexual sin or desertion by an unbeliever.” (caps mine)
Am I OBLIGATED to stay married to an adulterer, even if he repents?????
LikeLike
EPH320 – Any so-called “church” that dominates and binds people like yours is doing is a place you want to see in your rear view mirror as soon as possible. Scripture nowhere limits the right to divorce for adultery (for example) to “unrepentance” by the adulterer. Nor does Scripture deny the right to divorce for abuse. So that church fits under the category of the enslaving false teachers that Paul confronts in Galatians. They really are presenting a false gospel.
LikeLike
Hi Jeff.
Thank you for responding!
One of the Bible references used in the document to support this IDEOLOGY is:
????????
LikeLike
EHP320,
I believe Barbara Roberts in her book, Not Under Bondage [Affiliate link], argues that 1 Cor 7:15 is THE key text which gives liberty to a victim of abuse to divorce their abuser. If you haven’t already, I recommend you read her book to help you think this through.
If you are strapped for cash or if it is unsafe for you to purchase her book (your abuser may see the credit card purchase, etc.) please contact me (twbtc) at twbtc.acfj@gmail.com and we can send you a copy.
LikeLike
I agree with Barbara as she explains in her book. 1 Cor 7 tells the abuse victim she is not under bondage, not bound to remain in the marriage in other words. This text is typically misused by “wooden” Bible interpreters who fail to see the spirit of the text and demand that every situation adhere to the exact words used in a particular Scripture. Jesus refuted that kind of mishandling of God’s Word when He told the Pharisees that the Lord requires mercy, not sacrifice.
LikeLike
UPDATE Sept 2021: I have come to believe that Jeff Crippen does not practise what he preaches. He vilely persecuted an abuse victim and spiritually abused many other people in the Tillamook congregation. Go here to read the evidence. Jeff has not gone to the people that he spiritually and emotionally abused. He has not apologised to them, let alone asked for their forgiveness.
***
Hi EPH320, in addition to what Jeff and TWBTC have said to you, I encourage you to read this page on our blog which is part of our FAQs.
What Does The Bible Say About Divorce? It will give you a glimpse into the arguments I present in my book.
LikeLike
Thank you, Twbtc!
I am just concerned that people are being told that divorce is only allowed in the case of “UNREPENTANT” sexual sin.
What if the spouse contracts AIDS?
LikeLike
Thank you, Barbara, for this link.
What about divorce?
It was very helpful.
I am attending a church that STRONGLY follows JM [John MacArthur].
A man who attended JM’s system is currently one of our “pastors.”
They have switched over to “Elder rule.”
An Elder said that the congregation has “too much authority.”
They are implementing a “shepherding structure.” [Shepherding structure]
Our job as “members” is to “serve” and “submit to leadership.”
Some of their jobs are “church discipline” “correct for specific sin” “confront sin.”
9 marks book [9Marks]
“tulip” [T.U.L.I.P. – The theology of Calvinism: The five essential doctrines of Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints.]
I have not signed their “membership” document.
Things are changing……………………..
LikeLike
UPDATE Sept 2021: I have come to believe that Jeff Crippen does not practise what he preaches. He vilely persecuted an abuse victim and spiritually abused many other people in the Tillamook congregation. Go here to read the evidence. Jeff has not gone to the people that he spiritually and emotionally abused. He has not apologised to them, let alone asked for their forgiveness.
***
EPH320, I’m very glad to hear you haven’t signed their membership document. John MacArthur’s views on divorce are quite dangerous for abuse victims. I’ll be writing more on that in time to come, but here is our TAG which contains all our posts about John MacArthur.
The shepherding structure / system has been around for decades and wherever it has been used it has done great harm to many in the flock.
9Marks is also known for enabling lording-it-over attitudes from the elite. We don’t write about that, but other sites like The Wartburg Watch and Spiritual Sounding Board do.
Jeff Crippen and I having nothing wrong with ‘tulip’ which is an acronym for the doctrine of salvation (soterioloy) which is held by those who believe in Reformed Theology. However, not all who believe in the ‘tulip’ of Reformed Theology are safe for victims of domestic abuse. In fact, I would say that only a minority of them are. There are many who call themselves Reformed in their theology who are NOT treating the abused with justice. But in our view, it’s not because of ‘tulip’ — it’s for other reasons.
LikeLike
We recently emailed the pastor.
Here is the response that we received today.
LikeLike
EPH320- That pastor is absolutely butchering God’s Word. He is talking off the top of his head and passing what he says off onto you as God’s Word. That is pastoral malpractice and qualifies him to be the legalist Paul warns against in Galatians. In all that he has said, bottom line is this – the REAL fault in a divorce for adultery lies with the VICTIM, not the perpetrator. Because if she were a REAL Christian, she would dismiss the whole thing and stay married to the fraudster. That pastor is infecting the entire church body, enabling the wicked, wronging the oppressed.
LikeLike
Pastor Crippen, is this the type of stuff you see all the time? Letters like this from pastors yammering on and on about the abuser and how we have to wait and see and blah blah blah?
Not one word to this woman about looking for identifying markers from 2 Tim 3, or Romans 1:29 or Jude–nope! Just keep plugging along lady, keep twirling in circles, spinning plates on the end of a stick, smiling through the pain. We want to keep you shackled to an Antichrist for as long as we can cuz, you know, our pickens are gettin’ slim these days as so many of you seem to be escaping our clutches–BIBLICALLY!
All the marriage counseling, all the praying and reading and trying so hard did NOTHING but keep me locked up longer. So that I could have more children with less chance to escape. So he could plunge us heavily into debt AGAIN pretending it was for our benefit. So all the children could have HPV and the youngest severe PTSD.
ALL ABOUT THE ABUSER AND HOW WE SHOULD MAKE ALLOWANCES FOR HIM. I didn’t notice ONE THING IN THERE ABOUT THE WOMAN’S PAIN OR HEARTACHE OR SUFFERING! Just trite words NEVER ADDRESSING THE FACT THAT THIS MAN–AS SHOWN BY HIS BEHAVIOR– MIGHT NOT EVEN BE SAVED AND–GASP! MIGHT ACTUALLY BE AN ANTI-CHRIST!
NOPE! Cuz we are NEVER SUPPOSED TO QUESTION SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS TO BE SAVED EVEN THOUGH THEY DON’T ACT LIKE IT. We might offend an Antichrist hiding in the church if we do that! And we know JESUS would NEVER OFFEND ANYONE, RIGHT? Oh wait, He offended LOTS of people, IMPORTANT people in the church! And in His word there are lots of forewarnings about just this thing. But we’ll just push those teachings to the side and focus on whether or not this woman should hastily try to escape from this abuser or whether she should judge him too harshly or at all!
EPH320, I’m so sorry for the ridiculousness of this pastor’s rhetoric. For the wasted words he’s written to you. Luke 17:2, “It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.” Not only is he causing you to stumble by forcing you to waste brain cells reading this, and then letting it into your heart too! That you are confused and still trying so hard to do God’s will and this man knows this and keeps you on a string because of it!
Please do this yourself. Compare these Bible verses to your spouse (or anyone you want to seek God’s truth about). 2 Tim 3 attributes. Do they fit hubby? Be brutally honest and ask God to show you the truth.
Romans 1:29-32, the book of Jude, all the wicked ones from the Psalms. Give God a chance to show you, and give yourself the chance to know the truth through His (God’s / Jesus’s / the Holy Spirit’s) word…..let them show you and give yourself permission to see it. Those of us who have tried so hard to follow all the rules–to color inside the lines–are neon flashing signs for pastors like this. They know how we want to please and serve God and they use this very thing to destroy us.
I just wish ONE PERSON had ever cared enough about me and the damage that was being done to my relationship with God and with myself by evil teachings like this, to say what I just wrote. To give me permission to not think this man, just because he was a pastor, had God’s and therefore my (because I belong to God) best interests at heart. His entire letter is about the abuser and you not being too hasty and a “repentant” abuser needed more time still. I’d like to ask this pastor what his definition of repentant is. But it doesn’t matter to me because after this letter I wouldn’t ask this man for advice on how to cross the street. His heart was displayed and his heart cared NOTHING for the victim and ONLY about keeping the game in play.
LikeLike
RBE – Yep. This is exactly the kind of thing we see all the time.
LikeLike
Hi Pastor Jeff.
This morning, my husband told the pastor that he does not agree with meshing the 2 issues of the adulterer and the spouse……the ideology that the victim is obligated to work towards reconciliation! YIKES!
My husband has a friend who waited around for YEARS for his wife to “repent.”
The pastor then told my husband that he is not able to unmesh the 2 “Biblically!!!!!”
This is starting to REALLY concern me!!!
LikeLike
The pastor is dangerous! He probably won’t answer you if you put this to him, but you could try saying to him, “What about the man who commits adultery, catches the HIV virus from the person he sleeps with, and then repents of his adultery? Should his wife stay married to him?”
LikeLike
That pastor is a legalist. He is trying to usurp control over people’s lives that the Lord has not given him. For myself, I have concluded that I will never ever again be in a church that teaches and compels such things.
LikeLike
Yes….
I’ve thought about that very concept-
My husband tried to reason with the pastor, to no avail………..
LikeLike
Reading this pastor’s letter about the ‘repentant’ adulterer…does he not realize that cheaters are liars?
Why do they act like it’s only getting over the one betrayal that is difficult, rather than re-establishing trust with someone who has lied to you?
LikeLike
As for being too ‘hasty’, maybe there would be less cheating if the consequences were immediate?
LikeLike
AMEN! Lea!
LikeLike
PASTOR JEFF,
WOW!
I started reading your book, “UNHOLY CHARADE.”
Chapter 6-The church Has Enabled Abuse
This is EYE-OPENING!!!
Chapter 7-pages 149-150
Going beyond Scripture!!!
Thank you for this wonderful resource!!!!!
LikeLike
Hubby is still determined to go to this “church.”
My stomach hurts……………………..
LikeLike
You have every right to find another church yourself.
LikeLike
Thank you, Pastor Jeff.
At the church we attend, we are to unconditionally SUBMIT!
NO MATTER WHAT!
So I am the rebellious one!
LikeLike
Our “pastor” is a person who was a salesman, and then decided to be a “pastor” in a faltering church.
sales to pulpit……..
thinks his opinion is THE right way!
LikeLike
Dear Friends,
I suddenly got sooooooooo many cards and emails from the church since I had not been attending………..where are you?????
I attended last Sunday-
We had a guest speaker, and I thought it might be a little safer.
An Elder of the church (a JM [John MacArthur] and Jay Adams follower) was talking about how a local church allows the pastor’s wife to decide what the women study!
The ELDERS DON”T DECIDE what women study.
bad! bad! bad!
He said that only the Elders should be doing this. ??????????????????????????????
LikeLike
Wonderful, Barbara. The more I read oN ACFJ and the more The Lord shows me His truth the more I hurt over the wrong teaching I had.
I soooo appreciate your work and the way you clearly show us the truth.
LikeLike
AMEN!
LikeLike
I JUST had to explain this to another victim who is struggling today. The faster this spreads the better.
LikeLike
I’ve read your book and believe in the 3 A’s for divorce, but it is always good to be reminded.
LikeLike
Thanks for posting this Barbara. I will save this for my files in case I need to share it with someone one day.
I’m curious; are there other things that you don’t agree with Instone-Brewer about? Would you mind sharing and explaining if there are differences? Thanks.
LikeLike
Hi Fifty, my differences with Instone-Brewer are not as important as the other things I have to write about (which I never have enough time to do already), so I would rather not spend time on them. If you read my book and his scholarly book to compare it with mine, you can see where we differ.
LikeLike
I was in a relationship with a divorced woman for 4 years, and lived with her for 3 of those years. As we both started to become more and more spiritual, we decided to end our sinful co-habitation and get married.
It was then that we discovered Jesus’ teaching on divorce. The reason for my partner’s divorce was irreconcilable differences/her former husband’s refusal to start a family/emotional abuse. Because my perspective was that Jesus only allowed adultery as a legitimate reason for divorce, I told her I couldn’t marry her since God still recognized her former marriage as valid.
After reading Instone-Brewer’s book and reviewing Exodus 21, I am starting to believe that other grounds may also be valid (food, clothing, marital relations).
In your opinion, would her former husband’s refusal to start a family coupled with emotional abuse constitute grounds for divorce based on Exodus 21 (specifically marital relations)?
LikeLike
Conundrum – Our position, which we believe is biblical, is that abuse is grounds for divorce. Why? Because it is a violation of the marriage covenant and while we all violate our marriage covenant in some way on occasion, abuse is (as we define it) a habitual, ongoing, unrepentant quest to have power and control over one’s spouse, which emanates from a mentality of entitlement. Also, we would conclude that sinful withholding of conjugal rights and/or refusal to have children (if it were agreed in the marriage covenant that both desired children) is also a breaking of that covenant. With all of that said, you are the ones who need to work through Scripture on this and we are glad you have found Instone-Brewer’s books. Barbara Roberts’ book Not Under Bondage [Affiliate link] should be a help to you as well. Thank you for asking. Oh, and by the way, a little tip: You may not have intentionally meant anything by it, but I would suggest that you not speak of your fiance as “a divorced woman.” She is simply a woman:) I get it that you wanted to let us know that she had been divorce, but you might be surprised how much she would appreciate not being referred to by that adjective, “divorced.” You get what I mean I’m sure. Blessings on you both.
LikeLike
UPDATE Sept 2021: I have come to believe that Jeff Crippen does not practise what he preaches. He vilely persecuted an abuse victim and spiritually abused many other people in the Tillamook congregation. Go here to read the evidence. Jeff has not gone to the people that he spiritually and emotionally abused. He has not apologised to them, let alone asked for their forgiveness.
***
Thanks for the question, Conundrum. I think Jeff C has answered you well. I do hope you read my book as it deals more in depth with abuse than Instone-Brewer’s book (not putting his book down, by the way; I think both his book and mine have their place in this discourse.) And the first chapter defines and describes abuse in quite a lot of detail: your friend may find that chapter helpful when reflecting on her former marriage.
You might also like to check out the post I have called Still Married In The Sight Of God?
LikeLike
Thank you, Pastor Jeff!
This is the “ideology” of the pastor AND Elders that was drafted through Elder meetings.
My husband and I attended a church membership class, and were concerned about the language in the documents given to us (since we both know of others who were in adulterous marriages).
After recently receiving the updated document, we started questioning the language-
“we teach that God hates divorce, permitting it ONLY where there has been UNREPENTANT sexual sin or desertion by an unbeliever.” (caps mine.)
We also received this in response: “hope that helps. I may publish your question and the answer for the whole church, should the Elders think other might benefit.”
????????????????????
LikeLike
Hi EPH320, we allow republication of anything we write on this site so long as you cite the source and the URL. (One exception: we have one post which we have given a copyright notice for.)
You can read our policy about republishing our stuff here: Our publishing policy. (Scroll down to the subheading May I republish something from your blog?)
LikeLike
Hi Barbara.
The reply was from the pastor in response to our question to him.
He is only talking about the question we sent him, and his response to us.
We are not publishing anything from this site.
Sorry for the confusion.
Have a blessed weekend!
LikeLike
aaah, got it! :)
LikeLike
Thank you, Raped by Evil!
I am not in an adulterous marriage, but am willing to be used by God to be a voice for those who are!!
The church we attend APPEARS very Biblical (some practically worship JM! [John MacArthur]), but the Doctrinal interpretations are starting to RED FLAG both of us!
Sometimes this insanity knocks the wind out of our sails, and we need counsel from others to assure us that we are not going crazy!!!!!
I really appreciate your response!
Especially!!
MORE TIME?????
You expressed the feelings I had when I read the response. (In our church, feelings are GREATLY minimized by the pastor…..even from the pulpit!)
It’s comforting to know that somewhere out there, someone sees through this!!!
Thank you, again, for responding.
You are a blessing!
LikeLike
Thank you, Barbara.
This website is a GODSEND!!!!
LikeLike
EPH320:
This is a HUGE RED FLAG. Our emotions are God-given warning flags that something is wrong. For example, if we get angry at someone for a poor reason, that anger might be pointing to the need to correct our own heart, but if we are disrespected, that anger is helping us to understand that it is not okay.
Telling people to ignore, discount or box up their emotions, no matter how sophisticated it may sound, is simply grooming people to ignore clear signs of abuse. For example, Piper would say, if you’re angry about your job, you need to pray that God would give you joy. He completely discounts your emotions, and he discounts why your emotions might be completely valid (like your boss walks all over you). It’s no surprise then that Piper’s counsel to wives is to submit to abuse.
I think “anger” is behind virtually all victim-blaming. The victim comes to the church because s/he finally became angry enough to do something about the abuse, but the church cannot see beyond the anger, which they assume to be sinful. So, instead of listening and hearing, they listen with the thought that they are going to put this sinner in her place. When the other spouse comes in cool and collected, they associate that with righteousness, and now they have sided with the abuser.
Based on the two pieces of evidence (1) that the victim can almost always reconcile even in cases of adultery, and (2) that emotions are being minimized, I would say that this is a church that is a wolf sanctuary.
LikeLike
Thanks Mark Q! I agree with you. And here is a post which talks about that characteristic of John Piper’s philosophy.
Similarities between the Word of Faith Movement and Christian Hedonism
LikeLike
Thank you, MarkQ!
Red flags are popping up everywhere!
LikeLike
Barbara, thank you for sharing this post about John Piper!
LikeLike
It has been 16 years since I divorced my abusive unhusband (love that term!). I’m working through many, many issues and this topic is obviously of interest to me. I’m confused as to how Mark 10.12 fits into this.
LikeLike
Hi Beloved, I suggest you check out these two FAQ pages of ours:
What About Divorce?
What About Remarriage.
Then I suggest you read my book Not Under Bondage [Affiliate link] which explains it all in more depth.
LikeLike