This
is an extension to my series on the biblical perspective of divorce and
remarriage. The posts can be found here:
If one is to attempt to reckon with the
foremost research and discussion of today on divorce and remarriage in the bible,
it requires reading Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context (2002)
by David Instone-Brewer. In this
book, the author explores the Ancient Near Eastern understanding of marriage
and marriage contracts, the allowances for divorce and remarriage within the
Pentateuch, and what the Later Prophets say concerning breaking marriage vows.
Instone-Brewer then surveys how the increase of women’s rights during the
Intertestamental period affected marriage contracts and the rabbinic teaching
on grounds for divorce. All of this data set’s up for his analysis of Jesus and
Paul’s teachings before he closes with a survey of more modern thought and some
pastoral considerations.
There are a
number of discussion items that Instone-Brewer advances that are important for
setting the contextual scene of marriage and divorce. Some are well argued and
some require a bit more nuancing on his part.
1) Ex. 21:10-11,
not Dt. 24:1-4, was the standard text for Jewish legislation on divorce. Though
indeed there was considerable debate in Jesus’ day concerning the correct
interpretation of the Deuteronomy text and its bearing on divorce, most divorce
law in the Mishnah rotates around the three categories mentioned in the Exodus
text. Food and household provisions, along with marital obligations were basic
to marriage, though this was not symmetric between husbands and wives, and the
Mishnah required divorce if they were broken.
2) From OT times
to Jesus’ day and beyond, Jewish and other ANE divorce certificates always had
one important statement written on it: “You are free to marry whomever you
desire.” This has been long acknowledged, but Instone-Brewer amasses a
considerable amount of evidence for just how ubiquitous it was. Thus there is
practically no room for Heth and Wenham’s claim that Jesus made a distinction
between the two. This is a place where cultural-historical context indicates
that Jesus, and Matthew and Mark, needed to give more explanation if he
intended absolutely no remarriage allowed after divorce.
3) The
Intertestamental period saw a shift towards increased women’s rights,
especially in the Gentile world, resulting in increased property and marital
rights. Women in the Greco-Roman world had the same rights to initiate divorce
as the husband[1].
Jewish women, at least in Judea, could not initiate divorce but had greater
leverage. Within the Jewish Diaspora, there were greater tendencies towards
women having same divorce rights. This is contrary to the standard thinking
that women could not divorce and were subject to the whims of their husbands.
This paints a much fuller picture of marital relationships in the Greco-Roman
and Judean world contemporaneous with the NT[2].
Thus my analysis of Mt. 5:32b fits nicely within this framework.
Instone-Brewer
does, however, seem to overstate the point, claiming that within the Judean
world divorce became more common as both men and women could demand it.
Perhaps. The evidence given indicates that it was possible in some locations in
the Jewish Diaspora for women to give divorce certificates, and in the wealthy
class in Judea it would have been more likely that women could divorce – note
the Herodias and Salome incidents. However, Josephus notes that such action by
a woman was not in accordance with Jewish Law[3]
so some balance is required here.
4) Given the
previous point, it was not a given that a divorced woman needed remarry, as is
incorrectly assumed in most analyses of Matthew 5:32[4].
Rather, with the money received from the divorce settlement, she could easily
do as she wished, including move home, buy property and live self-sustained,
conduct her own business, etc.
5) Instone-Brewer
argues that the Greek “sexual unfaithfulness” in Mt. 5:32 and 19:9 is best seen
as a translation of “some
indecency” (literally, “nakedness of a matter” or better, “anything
unclean”) in Dt. 24:1. Maybe. But he then goes to argue that
Jesus was simply responding to the debate rather than rendering it pointless. Instone-Brewer
than adds the inference that Jesus didn’t disagree with the Exodus 21:10-11
provisions since he didn’t argue against them. Again, this misses the point –
Jesus surpasses the old covenant.
6) When we get
to Paul’s letter to Corinth, Instone-Brewer does argue, successfully in my
opinion, that the terminology Paul uses in 1 Cor. 7:10-11 refers to an “any
reason” divorce, allowed within Greco-Roman law, where either party could
divorce simply by leaving[5].
Again, he goes on to infer that the text
should be read simply as denying moral grounds for this certain type of
divorce. Again, while this is very important background for keeping a check on
going to far in the other direction, this misses the point. Paul’s overall
argument is for an attitude check and for living one’s life in accordance with
a new set of values.
7) Lastly,
Instone-Brewer argues quite persuasively that “not bound” 1 Cor. 7:15 only
makes sense if referring to freedom to remarry. Any other reading simply
doesn’t make much sense.
The final
outcome for Instone-Brewer is that the “biblical grounds for divorce are all
failures to keep the marriage vows – that is, promises of faithfulness and
provision of food, clothing, and love. The latter three may be generalized as
material and emotional support. Physical and emotional abuse are extreme
failures of material and emotional support.” This doesn’t mean we as Christians
take this in a legalistic sense else we act like the Pharisees. Rather, the NT
takes a pragmatic approach and Christians are to forgive when the partner is
repentant.
Despite an
excellent and very useful array of cultural-historical data and analysis, in
the end Instone-Brewer misses the mark because he, like Heth and Wenham, reads
the bible through a lens of codified ethics[6].
For example, in his survey of the Later Prophets he finds that a “stubbornness”
is found in Israel that warrants Yahweh’s divorce of Israel. In his
hermeneutics, this directly translates to human divorces finding an acceptable
place at a spouse’s stubbornness. But in his analysis, he fails to reckon with
the significance of the overarching discourse of the redemptive historical
framework that such language is set in the Later Prophets. And just because God unfortunately finds warrant for
divorce with a sinful humanity, does that mean that we too can find warrant?
This culminates
in his NT analysis of Jesus’ sayings in flattening out Jesus’ responses to the
Pharisees to simply be within the realm of Pharisaic debate. In actuality,
Jesus’ response cuts much deeper to a new set of demands, going to the very
heart, mind, and will of a person. Because of Instone-Brewer's “legalistic” framework[7],
his advice is easily open to abuse where any shortcomings in any of his
categories may justify divorce. Ciampa and Rosner offer very sage counter-advice:
“Wives and husbands are not well served by either overly lax or overly
restrictive interpretations of biblical teachings on divorce and remarriage,
and it is incumbent upon Christian leaders to provide counsel that takes seriously
both God’s commitment to the preservation of marriage wherever possible and his
commitment to the protection of the vulnerable…”[8]
Instone-Brewer fails to account for new covenant demands.
Divorce and Remarriage is one of a
broader host of issues discussed in God, Marriage, and Family (2006) by Andreas Köstenberger. This book is more
positively about defining family and how a family should function rather than
how to mitigate severe disfuntionality. Köstenberger is fairly
middle-of-the-road conservative Christian with perhaps a slight bent more
towards conservative. There are times where he seems to want the standard
conservative answer at the expense of subtle logical contradiction rather than
stake out something new that might be a better balance. Nevertheless, I was
pleased to find this was less than a How-To manual and more of a balanced, common
sense, biblical approach to many of the family issues that are explored.
In chapter 11, Köstenberger
spends all of 16 pages exploring the various points of discussion concerning
divorce and remarriage in the bible. Jesus’ contemporaries wrongly took Dt.
24:1-4 as prescriptive rather than descriptive, as only regulating divorce
rather than directly allowing divorce. The disciples’ reaction in Matthew 19:10
demonstrates that Jesus’ teaching indeed was more strict than most, including
the conservative rabbinic school of Shammai, but this hardly necessitates that
Jesus did not allow any divorce whatsoever. Köstenberger also sees Rom. 7:1-4
as not exhaustive prescription for divorce and remarriage but rather a general
principle illustrative of deeper truths of the atonement. In 1 Cor. 7:15, “not
bound” is similar to “not bound” in v. 39 (despite different Greek words) and
so allows remarriage in its specific case and Köstenberger feels that “those
who take 1 Cor. 7.15 to permit remarriage should not be ostracized if they get
remarried after prolonged failed attempts at reconciliation.” Then, in a
footnote (that is of similar substance to his blog post here), Köstenberger spends another two pages
engaging and critiquing a Christianity Today article by Instone-Brewer[9]
and a critique of Instone-Brewer by John Piper[10].
I find little
disagreement with Köstenberger’s criticism of Piper, who I find more and more
to be a bit too much on the side of reactionary, a little too suspicious of
historical analysis (though often with good warrant), and a little lacking on
solid exegesis; though, this doesn’t lessen my respect for him and the enormous
amount of good that his ministry has done. I find Köstenberger’s criticism of
Instone-Brewer a bit mixed however. He agrees with Instone-Brewer that Jesus
merely rejects the Pharisaical interpretation of Dt. 24:1-4 yet finds his claim
that since Jesus didn’t contradict Ex. 21:10-11, then he must have accepted it.
Köstenberger is quite right to question Instone-Brewer’s “argument from
silence”. However, Instone-Brewer has very well argued for the importance of
Ex. 21:10-11 in Jewish Law. If Jesus is merely rejecting the Pharisaical
interpretation of Dt. 24:1-4, as Köstenberger concedes, then it’s a rather
strong (not weak) argument from silence. Moreover, I find Köstenberger falling
into the same path as Instone-Brewer at taking the bible on a purely
deontological level, assuming that our ethical lead is merely a comprehensive
set of rules given by Jesus and the apostles. If this is the case, then why
doesn’t Jesus contradict Ex. 21:10-11 Law? If he doesn’t, then why can’t it
still stand? We are on firmer ground to see Jesus sweeping away the entire
“hard-heartedness” stance of the Law with new transcendent demands of
perfection; demands that may have a strange and unfulfilled dimension in this
fallen age but that stand straight and clear in a perfect world, the age to
come.[11]
Good thing God has given his Spirit to guide and direct us!
[1] “Greco-Roman” is in contrast with the
Greek world where, with a few exceptions, women were accorded a much lower
place in society.
[2] For an excellent analysis of women and
marital relationships in NT times, see Lynn Cohick, Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient
Ways of Life (2009).
[3] Jewish Antiquities 15.259
[4] This causes the common interpretation
that the husband causes the woman to commit adultery because she is forced to
marry another man.
[5] That that was the law doesn’t
necessarily mean that divorce rates were unusually high. See Lynn Cohick’s book
referenced above: various cultural values within the Greco-Roman world
generally kept a fairly good check on divorce.
[6] Perhaps better put as “deontological”.
[7] Instone-Brewer consciously distances
himself from being legalistic and suggests a “pragmatic” approach. However, I’d
suggest that his hermeneutic tends towards a sort of legalism where we need
simply only determine the “laundry list” of what’s acceptable. This seems to be
partly due to his flattening of the text onto its historical context at many
junctures and missing the nature of Jesus’ radical demands.
[8]
Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner, The First
Letter to the Corinthians, pp. 293-4 n. 115
[10] http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/tragically-widening-the-grounds-of-legitimate-divorce.
See also Piper’s outline of his position of no remarriage allowed: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/divorce-remarriage-a-position-paper.
[11] This
does not mean Jesus does not require radical living in this age. At stake is
the welfare of the oppressed.
No comments:
Post a Comment