Instone-Brewer, Piper and Kostenberger on Divorce and Remarriage
Instone-Brewer wrote on divorce in the October issue of Christianity Today, arguing that divorce (and remarriage) is permissible in cases of adultery, emotional or physical neglect, or abandonment and abuse. John Piper responded, rightly chastising Christianity Today for putting the careless phrase "When to separate" on its cover, even thought the matter being debated is whether separation is ever permissible, and if so, under what circumstances.
Then Andreas Kostenberger entered the fray, representing the majority opinion among evangelicals: that divorce is only permissible in cases of adultery or desertion.
I commend these three articles for all who are wrestling with the issue. Each is an articulate spokesman for their respective position.
Update: I think Instone-Brewer goes too far. I'm wrestling between Piper's and Kostenberger's views. Many find that Piper's translation of "porneia" in Matt. 19:9 as referring narrowly to fornication, rather than more broadly to adultery, has weak lexical support. On the other hand, I find it difficult to apply the so-called adultery exception. For example, when does one commit "adultery"? According to Jesus, it can be committed while checking out at the grocery store. In other words, what constitutes "adultery"? Must it be physical or can it be imagined? For example, one pastor I respect told me that viewing pornography on a regular basis would constitute adultery and thus be legitimate grounds for divorce. So where does it end? Sounds like a slippery slope. It also seems that once you tell a grieving, wronged spouse that they have legitimate grounds for divorce, it predisposes them to select that option. Even in an extreme situation (a violently abusive husband), it seems that separation can accomplish everything (in terms of the wife's safety, etc.) that divorce accomplishes while making it more clear that repentance/reconciliation is the goal.
Comments
Alex,
Two things:
1) Have you guys been evacuated?
2) I think that you are right to state that I-B goes too far in "legitimate grounds" for divorce. I also think that Piper's position of limiting "porneia" to fornication during the betrotal period does not do justice to the lexical data. Last year I wrote a brief paper on Mattew 19 and came to the conclusion that "porneia" in Matthew 19 included adultery (as well as other forbidden sexual practices). In my opinion, one of the most helpful texts for seeing the overlap of meaning between porneia and adultery is found in Jer 3:8-10 in the LXX ((See discussion in Kostenberger p. 233).
Hope your doing well,
hs
Posted by: hs | October 24, 2007 01:15 PM
HS,
We are well, thanks. The air is dusty, but we have not been evacuated.
Thanks,
Alex
Posted by: Alex Chediak | October 24, 2007 01:50 PM
Alex,
Good to hear you guys are doing well....I just re-read my previous post and noticed that I didn't clarify what "other forbidden sexual practices" would be. I think that it must be an actual "act" of sexual intercourse. This would include adultery, beastiality, homosexuality, etc...However, I do not think that it is faithful to the text to broaden the meaning of "porneia" to include "lust in the heart" etc...
Blessings,
hs
Posted by: hx | October 24, 2007 04:41 PM
Thank you for highlighting this issue. When I wrote the Christianity Today article, I struggled greatly with the word limit for such an important subject. There wasn't room to define neglect, so I referred readers to my Divorce & Remarriage in the Church (the full text is at www.DivorceRemarriage.com)
The book details the way in which Jesus emphasises that a wronged partner should forgive and forgive and forgive and that turning to divorce as a remedy for persistant neglect or abuse is a last resort. I'm sorry that I have caused confusion by not making this clear in the article itself. See my response to this and other issues here.
David Instone-Brewer
Posted by: David Instone-Brewer | October 30, 2007 04:19 PM
Dr. Instone-Brewer,
Thanks for taking the time to comment with a link to your work. I would not want for you to be misrepresented on this blog. I was also grateful to discover this clarification of your recent CT article.
Alex Chediak
Posted by: Alex Chediak | October 30, 2007 11:09 PM