Some people say we must pay close attention to the different words the Bible uses for divorce because the words mean different things. These folks say that words like depart / leave / put away / separate do not refer to legal divorce because no divorce certificate was issued, whereas other words refer to a certificate of divorce and only those words refer to real divorce. They say this is the KEY to untangling all the knotty texts about divorce.
This idea is not true. Authors and bloggers who make this argument are promoting an idea that is false. It comes from ignorance and lack of study. Call me blunt if you like, but please listen to what I have to say. For years I have bitten my tongue, trying to be tolerant and patient with folks who promulgate this mistaken idea. But the time has come for me to debunk it fair and square because rather than fading away (as false ideas would, if there were enough good teachers in the church) it is being promoted more widely.
I have to assume that folks who promote this mistaken idea have not read David Instone-Brewer’s work in depth. Most of these advocates are passing on uneducated ideas they have picked up from other uneducated authors.
Dr Instone-Brewer is a Tyndale scholar from Cambridge England. He is a research scholar with linguistic expertise way above most of us. As part of his scholarly career he has studied not only the biblical texts in their original languages but the extra-biblical literature about marriage and divorce from the period in which the Bible was written. He knows far more about the subject of how words were used than most authors and advocates who are writing about domestic abuse these days.
1 Corinthians 7
One of the passages where people focus on the different words is 1 Corinthians 7:10-15. Two different words for divorce are used in that passage: chōrízō(used four times, verses 10, 11a and twice in 15) and aphiēmi (used three times, verses 11b, 12 and 13).
Instone-Brewer says there is NO difference in meaning between the words chōrízō and aphiēmi. Both words meant “divorce” in Greek documents that were written over several centuries around the time of Christ. The words were used interchangeably. They both meant a fully legal divorce.
I expect that the advocates and authors I’m wanting to challenge probably won’t read this post of mine because they’ve already made their minds up. I have the sense that they don’t like me much. Or they can’t be bothered reading my work. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that they are content with their views because they sell their books and get plenty of readers by promulgating their ideas – so they see no need to rethink.
Why do I bother? I am concerned about the promulgation of this false notion because it propels victims of abuse down paths that lead nowhere. Paths that give more confusion to those who are true disciples of our Lord. Paths that go into labyrinthine convolutions that are way too difficult for most victims of abuse to study when they are trying to work out how to get through the minefield.
Victims of spousal abuse are facing multiple dangerous minefields. They are trying to protect themselves and their kids (if they have kids) from the abuser and the abuser-enabling systems of society and church.
For example, would you have the time for complicated word study in Greek and Hebrew when the court is ordering you to give your abuser access to your kids, and you have good reason to believe your ex is abusing your kids? I certainly didn’t, when I was in that situation. And even if I had had the time, I would not have had the emotional energy because I was so traumatised and exhausted.
Part 1 of this series introduced the tangled mess of mistaken notions about what the Bible teaches on divorce. It’s like a knot in which you have to disentangle many different cords before you can get all the passages to line up and harmonise.
The false notion that I’m trying to correct here is the idea that we should pay attention to how the Bible uses different words for divorce because the different words meant different things — that the Bible talks about dismissal/ abandonment/ separation without a divorce certificate which is not really the legal ending of the marriage; and the Bible talks about divorce in which a certificate was issued so it was a legal divorce.
When this false notion is applied to the misbelief that Malachi 2:16 says “God hates divorce,” we get even more confusion. (How many times do I have to keep repeating that the Hebrew in Malachi 2:16 refers to the husband who hates his wife? Click here for explanation of the translation issue in Malachi 2:16.)
And when this false notion is applied to the confrontation between the Pharisees and Jesus (Matthew 19 & Mark 10) where the Pharisees tried to entangle Jesus into saying something self-incriminating about divorce, the confusion intensifies. It doubles down and tangles with the misinterpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
Side note: I dealt with the misinterpretation of Deuteronomy 24, Matthew 19 and Mark 10 in my book Not Under Bondage, but I know of people who have read my book who still don’t seem to understand what I wrote about those three passages in the Bible. Sigh. Didn’t I articulate my ideas clearly enough? I would truly like feedback on this, as I’m mystified why some advocates who have read my book don’t seem to have grasped the arguments I made in it. They have commended my book, but they keep repeating ideas I debunked in my book. And no; I am not going to name those advocates in this post, but I have no problem if commenters on this post want to name those advocates. I’m rather tired of being shunned as the advocate who is unsafe because she is always calling out other advocates. Someone else can put their head above the parapet for a change! Sorry. Vent over. End of side note.
So… some advocates and book authors are recycling and spreading this notion that “word meanings are the key” into the minds of the multitudes of victims of domestic abuse who are desperately trying to understand what the Bible says about divorce.
I believe that authors and bloggers have grabbed onto this false idea because it seems to fit. They’ve found an idea they can live with, so they stop there. They can live with it because it seems to release many of the chains that bind victims of abuse. It seems to set victims of abuse free from feeling guilty about divorcing their abusers.
But just because a notion seems to fit is not enough.
Just because a notion seems to give liberty and the ethical tick of approval to abuse victims divorcing their abusers, that does not mean the notion is true. For a notion to be true, it needs to fit with reality. And that includes the reality of history. How words were used at the time the author wrote them. It is not enough that a notion fits with one’s gut feeling about justice. It is not enough for a notion to fit with a gut feeling (and let me affirm it is a right gut feeling) that God in His compassion and justice must surely allow victims of abuse to divorce their abusers.
Even though I pretty much despair of influencing the advocates who are promoting this false notion, I will share with you, dear reader, the following quotes from Dr David Instone-Brewer’s scholarly book Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: the Social and Literary Context (Eerdmans Publishing, 2002). [Affiliate link]
In his book, David Instone-Brewer translated 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 this way:–
10 And to the married I command (not I, but the Lord): A wife ought not to separate herself [chorizo] from her husband 11 (and even if she separates herself [chorizo], she ought to remain unmarried, or she ought to be reconciled to her husband); and a husband ought not dismiss [afiemi] his wife.
12 But concerning other matters I say, not the Lord: If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she is content to live with him, he ought not dismiss [afiemi] her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he is content to live with her, she ought not dismiss [afiemi] her husband. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: otherwise your children would be unclean; but as it is they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever separates themself [chorizo], let them separate themself [chorizo]: the brother or sister is not bound in such cases: for God has called us in peace.
He then says:
Both the verbs chorizo and afiemi have the sense of “to divorce” although they have been translated here by “to separate” and “to dismiss,” respectively. Differences between these words should not be exaggerated. There may be no significance in their use other than stylistic variation. In English one might use both “divorce” and “dissolution” in the same paragraph without intending any difference in meaning. There were more than fifty words used for “divorce” in Greek marriage and divorce contracts, and it was common to use several in a single document. It is certainly not possible to say that afiemi is a legal divorce and chorizo is just a separation. In Greco-Roman society, separation was a legal divorce, and chorizo is the most common of the words used for divorce. (198-9, bold emphasis added)
Paul was writing to the Corinthian congregation. Corinth was a Roman colony and was therefore under Greco-Roman law. The believers who lived in Corinth would have understood and been subject to Greco-Roman law. As an educated man who possessed Roman citizenship, Paul would certainly have understood Greco-Roman law.
Instone-Brewer says this about the Greco-Roman law in ancient times:
…if separation has taken place the couple have already completed the divorce procedure, according to Greco-Roman law. Even if the dowry was not returned they were still considered legally divorced, and the wife would have to take her ex-husband to court for the return of the dowry. No rite or document was needed to complete the divorce, so there was nothing more that they needed to do to complete a divorce other than separate. (202, emphasis added)
Let’s review what we’ve learned so far
- In Greek documents that dealt with divorce, chorizo is the most common of the words used for divorce.
- It wrong to say that afiemi is a legal divorce and chorizo is just a separation.
- In Greco-Roman law, separation = divorce. If one party separated with intent to end the marriage, that was a legal divorce. No document was needed to complete the divorce.
Instone-Brewer quotes an intriguing document where a Jewish woman was petitioning a Jewish court to get her dowry returned. She wanted redress for the financial, emotional and physical abuse her husband had done to her. Her husband was called Serapion –
Serapion, having squandered my dowry as he pleased, continually ill-treated me and insulted me, using violence towards me, and depriving me of the necessaries of life. I therefore beg you to order him to be brought before you in order that he may be compelled perforce to pay back my dowry increased by half its amount. (202)
If you go back and look at David Instone-Brewer’s translation of 1 Corinthians 7 which I showed above, you will see that gender has nothing with how afiemi and chorizo are used. The text does not use afiemi only for the man, and chorizo only for the woman.
So this has nothing to do with the traditional Jewish notion that the divorce certificate could only be written by the husband. That notion was and still is prevalent in Judaism, but it came from a legalistic interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1. The Jewish priests and scribes had long insisted that the certificate was THE essential item for a divorce to be legal. And they followed suit with all Ancient Near East societies in saying that only the husband could write the certificate. But that’s just tradition, it is not part of of God’s law. Moses only mentioned the husband writing the certificate in his pre-law-narrative which set the scene for the law in Deuteronomy 24:4. (Later in this series I will be doing a post that goes into this in more detail. In that post I will be amplifying some of what I’ve already said in my book.)
Let’s get back to what Instone-Brewer says.
From the breadth and depth of his scholarship, Dr Instone-Brewer rightly states that Paul would not have been using chorizo to mean “separation but not divorce” as against afiemi to mean “divorce with a certificate”. He says there would have been no point in Paul making that distinction to his Corinthian readers. Let me explain this part of his argument by paraphrasing some of his words from p 202 and elsewhere in his book.
- If a Christian wife divorced her non-Christian Jewish husband because he was ill-treating her, she would be free to remarry under Greco-Roman law.
- No divorce certificate was required.
- The only stipulation Paul put on remarriage was that she should marry a Christian.
- Jewish religious leaders (scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees) all taught that a divorce certificate was essential to make a divorce legal, and the certificate could only be written by the husband.
- So the only people who said there must be a divorce certificate would have been non-Christian Jews who thought they fully understood Mosaic Law and were insisting on adhering to their interpretation of Mosaic Law.
- But here’s the point: A divorced Christian woman in Corinth wouldn’t need to seek a divorce certificate through a Jewish court. Her having no divorce certificate had no bearing on her right to remarry, because she would not be choosing a non-Christian Jew as her second husband.
- And if a divorced Christian woman chose as her second husband an ethnically Jewish man who had converted to Christianity, that man would not require her to possess a divorce certificate from her former husband.
- She would not be stigmatized by the congregation of believers, and she would not be stigmatized by the general community of Corinth.
- The only ones who might stigmatize her for remarrying without a divorce certificate were the die-hard Jews who were clearly resisting the gospel and were enemies of Christ. (Sound familiar?)
May this post help you if you are a victim of domestic abuse struggling to find your way through the thorny tangled hedges of competing teachings and ideas.
Those who say that we need to pay attention to the words the Bible uses for divorce are barking up the wrong tree.
Update naming two authors who claim that word meaning are the key to untangling the scriptures about divorce. – added 2 May 2019
Walter Callison is an author who claims that word meanings are the key to untangling the knotty passages about divorce. Callison’s book Divorce: A Gift of God’s Love (2002) is being recommended by at least one domestic abuse advocate, which saddens me.
I do not recommend his book. I believe Callison is muddled and confused about lots of things. Callison’s book shows no evidence that he has read the extant ancient Jewish and ancient Near East documents which mention divorce. So he is nowhere near the scholarly competence and in-depth knowledge of David Instone-Brewer.
Stephen Gola is another author who claims that word meanings are the key to disentangling the knotty divorce passages. I do not recommend his book Divorce: Gods’ Will? (Divorce Hope 2003). Even though his book argues that abuse is grounds for divorce, he makes many logical and exegetical errors in his argumentation to arrive at that conclusion.
His views on intercultural marriages are very strange, almost racist. And his charismatic approach to ‘soul ties’ lacks understanding of the way the abuser manipulates the victim to brainwash her. He recommends people I would never recommend: Marilyn Hickey, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, Focus on the Family.
***
Posts in this series
Part 1: The tangled mess of mistaken notions about what the Bible teaches on divorce.
Part 2: Is this post.
Part 5: Does Scripture differentiate between ‘putting away’ and ‘divorce’?
Part 6: Divorce in Deuteronomy 21 gives dignity and rights to the woman
***
For further reading
Mumpsimus – a traditional notion that is obstinately held although it is unreasonable
Discover more from A Cry For Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I encountered the word mumpsimus shortly after my forays into the ACFJ blog. I was fascinated by the word and its meaning, as people in many areas of my personal / professional life held tightly to false – and sometimes dangerously false – notions. (Omitting many details for my protection.)
I did not understand until I continued reading the ACFJ blog how pervasive some “C”hristian false teachings were and how deadly they could be to people, though I had previously had experience with other “C”hristian false teaching.
I need ALL “C”hristian false teaching corrected, whether or not it had / has direct application to my life. This helps correct my knowledge of God, as some facets of His character have been twisted beyond all recognition.
While the words for divorce did not affect my own situation, I was relieved to discover my divorce was in no way going against God. Indeed, I would have had every right to initiate the divorce had I done so. (Omitting details for my protections.)
From the original post:
^That.
And were I to change the words “domestic abuse” to “multiple forms of abuse”, I would add another ^That.
LikeLike
I note that in 1 Cor 7 chorizo is used of men, or when discussing both sexes, and afiemi of women. But there is not a hint of legal procedure in there! What bizarre interpretations some people get into because divorce makes them uncomfortable!
LikeLike
Hi Chookie! Thanks for commenting at the blog.
Yes, there is no hint of legal procedure to effect divorce in 1 Corinthians 7.
You said:
As far as I am aware, the idea that “word meanings in the Greek and Hebrew are the key” is promoted by authors and bloggers who are NOT uncomfortable with divorce. Those authors and bloggers are comfortable with divorce for abuse. They are arguing that abuse IS grounds for divorce.
I agree with those authors and bloggers that abuse is grounds for divorce. But I don’t agree with their assertion that differentiating between certain Greek and Hebrew words is the key to interpreting what scripture says about divorce. I think their arguments are simplistic and ill-informed.
LikeLike
Barbara, thanks for your hard work in reaching out to victims of domestic abuse. That victims of injustice, maltreatment, and abuse should have to struggle through “thorny tangled hedges of competing teachings and ideas” when they should be gently supported and led through clear paths to open, green, peaceful pastures is itself a telling sign that something is very wrong with the way the church handles the whole issue of marriage and divorce. Correct interpretation of the Bible should lead to outcomes that are consistent with the rest of Scriptures. God is not the God of confusion.
LikeLike
Thank you so much, Anonymous. Your encouragement means a great deal to me.
The last 24 hours has been hard for me, as an advocate has told me that she will not change her mind on this ‘words are key’ thesis. Even though the thesis is proved wrong, she will not change her endorsement of it.
Where is intellectual rigour in the evangelical church? And in particular, where is it in the advocacy community? Times like this I despair that I’m making any difference. And I wonder why I keep going.
LikeLike
There are teachers and preachers in the Body of Christ. There are also abuse advocates within the Body of Christ, thankfully. Teaching, as we so well know, can lead to freedom or to bondage; clarity or confusion; healing or harm.
A Christian abuse advocate, whether by design or by default, is a teacher of the Bible. That is in addition to being a counselor and a beacon pointing to hope in Christ. One who supposedly has clarity and a heart for The Shepherd and His brutalized sheep.
I’m not seeing that in the reply of this unnamed advocate.
I’m sorry for your trials, Barb, as you sacrifice your time, concern, study, and popularity to truly advocate for victims.
LikeLike
I’m pleased to report that that advocate is interacting with more me (by email) and it looks like she and I might end up having a fruitful discussion.
LikeLike
Barbara, I can’t express how badly I feel about your set back. This ‘advocate’ must be someone you hold in high regard. I wonder if this advocate has read your entire series yet.
It seems you have been in a crucible for many, many months now. If only you could peer into the daily lives of so many of us who have studied your teachings for years now. We are vibrant, where once we were nearly dead. We are emulating your confidence because it comes to us in dishes of love as a mother loves her children.
Sometimes, when I feel like I have hit a brick wall, experience tells me to move over a few steps and walk forward past the wall.
Hold your head high. All you need to do today is, hold your head high and breath. We are praying for you and loving you.
LikeLike
Thanks, Seeing Clearly. And I like your picture of walking past the brick wall. :)
I didn’t hold that advocate in high regard. But I not have the kinds of serious concerns about her work that I have about many other advocates I have critiqued. However, I had been hoping she would display more openness to my argument than she did.
I have no idea whether she has read my entire series (and of course the series is not finished yet). I think she may not be following this blog, which is why I emailed her this post directly.
Oh well. I’ll take a few steps sideways and keep on walking. But for those of you who appreciate or may be learning from my work, please know that when you comment on it here it helps me keep going. Even when commenters are not wholly agreeing with my propositions, so long as they express their ideas in rational and respectful discourse and back them up with their own experience or evidence from their own study, I am encouraged. I relish good robust debate. It shows people are reading and taking the ideas seriously. And sometimes what commenters say here advances and nuances my own thinking.
LikeLike
I am reading and appreciate your work, Barb. It takes me a long time to write a comment that I’m sure I’d like to post. I went over your guidelines and am just thinking a bit more before I post and trying to follow guidelines. But mostly I am just really busy with work and can’t respond quickly so I’ve just been reading. I’ve told a few other women I know that might be interested in the resources here and have shared the link. I hope this encourages you.
LikeLike
Thanks, Artina. Yes it does encourage me. :)
LikeLike
I’ve decided to name two authors who say that word meanings are the key to untangling the knotty texts about divorce. I will be adding an Update in this post, to let people know that Walter Callison and Stephen Gola are two authors who promote this mistaken idea.
Walter Callison is an author who claims that word meanings are the key to untangling the knotty passages about divorce. Callison’s book Divorce: A Gift of God’s Love (2002) is being recommended by at least one domestic abuse advocate, which saddens me.
I do not recommend his book. I believe Callison is muddled and confused about lots of things. Callison’s book shows no evidence that he has read the extant ancient Jewish and ancient Near East documents which mention divorce. So he is nowhere near the scholarly competence and in-depth knowledge of David Instone-Brewer.
Stephen Gola is another author who claims that word meanings are the key to disentangling the knotty divorce passages. I do not recommend his book Divorce: Gods’ Will? (Divorce Hope 2003). Even though his book argues that abuse is grounds for divorce, he makes many logical and exegetical errors in his argumentation to arrive at that conclusion.
His views on intercultural marriages are very strange, almost racist. And his Charismatic approach to ‘soul ties’ lacks understanding of the way the abuser manipulates the victim to brainwash her. He recommends people I would never recommend: Marilyn Hickey, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, Focus on the Family.
LikeLike
I’ve heard / read good things about David Instone-Brewer years ago when I was reading on other Christian forums. Many other authors that I read years ago on trying to understand my situation were disturbing, some from FoF, “Love and Respect”, “His Needs, Her Needs”….the list goes on. Anything that kept me trying to make it work and giving a false vision / false hope was disturbing. Books and counsel that helped me understand the manipulative game and encouraged me in good self-care, which included saying “no” and drawing boundaries, were helpful.
LikeLike
Thanks Artina.
You probably already know about our Hall of Blind Guides but I’m giving the link here for readers who may not yet be aware of it.
Hall of Blind Guides – Resources that Will Not Help (and may harm) Abuse Victims
I will be adding to the Hall of Blind Guides the books by Stephen Gola and Walter Callison.
LikeLike
One of the things that abusers do SO well (and this really drives me nuts)—is that they play word games with their victims, or with those around the victim that they seek to deceive as well.
Example: “I never SAID the word “worthless” to her. So what is her problem, exactly? All I said is that she’s doing a lousy job in anything she puts her efforts into. But I never SAID she was worthless—it was just “honest feedback” to try to encourage her to do better.”
Dance around the word all you want, but in effect, that is what you were saying—-that she is worthless—regardless if you never said that actual word.
Words mean something indeed—-in fact, they mean everything. When I first started to read this post I had to adjust my thinking. Because it’s a pretty common theme in studying the Word, the exact wording (and accurate interpretation of those words) makes all the difference.
I don’t think this post contradicts that, by the way! But I had to sit back and realize that even with using interchangeable words for divorce—-the message was the same: it means divorce. Not separation or dismissal or taking a break or whatever.
So if an abuser uses words that indicate that you are worth very little, but never uses the actual word “worthless,” don’t be fooled. That abuser is saying that you are worthless. He or she is just using other methods and other words to try to dodge accountability.
I think this was a great start in untangling those knots. I’m so sorry you’ve received backlash for your work. The last thing that you are in your writing is frivolous. You put so much hard work and research into everything you post, that it’s unfair for others to assume that you don’t know what you’re talking about, or where you are coming from.
LikeLike
I think your example of the abuser hairsplitting about whether he said the word ‘worthless’ is a good example, Helovesme.
And in relation to this part of your comment: —
—I do put immense work and research into many of my posts. I sometimes think that the backlash against me comes at least partly from people who do not bother to read my posts in full. They read the first few lines that are shared on Facebook or Twitter, and then they criticise me on the basis of the assumptions they make from those first few lines.
However I think that some of my critics do read the entire thing I’ve written (whether it’s a blog post or my book) — yet they still don’t grasp my argument because it doesn’t calibrate with the beliefs they have long held.
It is hard to dislodge false beliefs. It took me three years to write my book, and for most of that time I was examining and weighing all the false beliefs about divorce. Only towards the end of that three years did I arrive at my conclusions about how the divorce texts are to be correctly interpreted so they all stand up and face the same way.
LikeLike
When people attack the messenger and not the message, it is a sure sign to me that they can’t or won’t contest the message. To revert instead to attacking the messenger shows a lack of knowledge, at least, if not a lack of intelligence and definitely a lack of character.
LikeLike
Thanks, James. :)
LikeLike
I have three questions about your position on divorce.
First, I agree that the words in 1 Corinthians 7 are synonyms. I also agree that the terms relate to legal proceedings. But here is my question: when you say divorce is allowed for desertion (or abandonment), does this not mean legal divorce? In other words, I have heard many people say that they have been “abandoned” by their spouse, when in fact the spouse has not legally separated or divorced. “Abandonment” if not measured by legal, objective divorce, can be very subjective. That’s why I think 1 Corinthians 7 is talking about legal (objective) divorce.
Second, do you think that in cases of abandonment, the abandoned spouse is passive in the process? In other words, believers are not to be ACTIVE in pursuing divorce in cases of abandonment. The believer is to let the unbelieving spouse go. Stated differently, a person may be ACTIVE to initiate divorce in cases of adultery (although divorce is not required in cases of adultery), and the believer is PASSIVE in cases of abandonment because the very nature of abandonment must be defined as legal.
Third, your view on divorce for abuse falls outside traditional views (e.g. Westminster Confession of Faith) on divorce. Where do you find the case for divorce for abuse in church history?
LikeLike
Hi Sara, thanks for your questions.
When I say the Bible allows divorce for desertion (or abandonment), I believe the Bible allows legal divorce for desertion or abandonment. You are right that the word ‘abandoned’ can be ambiguous. When a person says they been “abandoned” by their spouse, the person may be legally divorced and be referring to abandonment as the biblical ground for that divorce; or the person may have been abandoned, but not yet legally separated or divorced.
In cases of abandonment, I believe that the Bible allows the abandoned spouse to actively pursue legal divorce in their country’s secular court system. The difficulty you are having seems to be due to the cultural differences between modern day divorce laws, and the laws in the context in which Paul was writing. In the Greco-Roman law of Corinth, divorce occurred simply when one or both parties ceased to regard the other as a spouse. Legal procedures were not necessary unless there were difficulties with dowry or the legitimacy of a child. Paul wrote in this legal context. However, divorce in our culture means more than separation, it demands a legal procedure. Our context requires that if the unbeliever does not initiate this procedure, the believer can initiate the legal procedure to legitimise the de facto divorce. Yes, the Bible says the believer is to let the unbelieving spouse go, and that phraseology sounds passive, not active. But in our modern context, since some abandoners do not actively pursue a legal divorce within the secular courts, the believing spouse is at liberty to pursue a legal divorce in the secular court.
Yes, my view on divorce for abuse falls outside some traditional views (e.g. Westminster Confession of Faith) on divorce. You asked where I find the case for divorce for abuse in church history. I’ll give you several links to answer this question.
Thomas Cranmer on divorce for abuse
Puritans who said abuse was grounds for divorce
The 1689 London [Baptist] Confession of Faith on Divorce and Remarriage — a sermon by Ps David Dykstra. Note: Dykstra is to be abhorred for defending convicted child abuser Tom Chantry. But his sermon on divorce and remarriage can perhaps stand on its own merits. It discusses the 1689 London [Baptist] Confession. The London Confession is interesting because it did not include the section on divorce and remarriage which the [Presbyterian] Westminster Confession had included.
David Clyde Jones is remembered as the PCA’s chief ethicist of recent times. He trained generations of pastors at Covenant Theological Seminary, where he taught for 40 years. He commended my book Not Under Bondage. He suggested that the Westminster Confession’s statement about divorce be modified by replacing the word “desertion” with the phrase “repudiation of the marriage covenant” — viz: “Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage, yet, nothing but adultery, or such wilful repudiation of the marriage covenant as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage”.
Go here for more info: A contemporary PCA theologian who said that abuse is grounds for divorce – David Clyde Jones
LikeLike
Barbara,
I would have three follow up points to your answers to my question:
Thank you for your time. Your website is one of the better ones out there because you are careful with your words, documentation, arguments, etc. You have substance when most of the stuff on the Internet is fluff.
LikeLike
Hi Sara. :) I will respond to your three points.
Point One. It not always the case that an unbeliever will actively initiate a divorce or legal separation (or commit adultery allowing for divorce). For instance, some men who abuse their wives will purposefully NOT initiate the legal process and will do whatever they can to resist the abused wife obtaining a divorce in our court system. These men know that they can ‘keep the moral high ground’ in the eyes of the church, and paint their wife as the sinner because she is initiating the legal process.
You said,
If a person claims to be a believer, and claims that they have grounds for divorce because their spouse abandoned them, they are making two claims. The first claim (the claim to be a believer), may be a spurious claim, or it may be a true claim. If the first claim is spurious, there is a possibility that the second claim (the claim to have been abandoned) is also spurious. Maybe those are the cases you have seen in abundance, where an abuser is claiming ‘abandonment’ as grounds for divorce, but in reality the abuser just wants out for self-serving reasons.
On the other hand, if the first claim is true, then there is a decent likelihood that the second claim is also true.
Point two. I do not say that in Paul’s time “abandonment” could happen without legal separation or divorce. I say that in Paul’s time, in the Corinthian context where Roman law applied, “abandonment” was divorce because no legal process was necessary. Evidence for this is given in my book, where I cite many things from David Instone-Brewer’s book Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context [Affiliate link]. I don’t have the time now to give you all the page references from Instone-Brewer’s book.
It’s hard for us moderns to wrap our heads around this. The best analogy I can think of is what we see happening in cohabiting relationships today, where people cohabit without marrying, and break up without any legal process. When one of the cohabiters considers the relationship over, it is over.
Point three. I think you probably need to do more than ‘scan through’ the links I’d given. Where I have not been able to show the historical figures’ biblical arguments, it is because I have not been able to find their detailed biblical arguments. These men lived hundreds of years ago and some of their detailed reasoning was never put down in print; they were making their arguments verbally in Christian settings amongst their peers, but not necessarily writing down their detailed reasoning, and only their conclusions were written down.
LikeLike