Malachi 2:16 Yahweh, the God of Israel, says that he hates divorce; Exodus 21:7-8  7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the men servants do. 8 If she please not her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed: he shall have no power to sell her to a strange nation, seeing he has dealt deceitfully with her. Exodus 21:10-11  10 If he takes another [a 2nd] wife; her [the 1st wife's]  food, her raiment, and her *duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then she shall go out free without money. Deuteronomy. 24:1-4  1 When  a  man marries a woman, and it comes to pass that she find no favor in his eyes,  because he has found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement,  and put it in her hand, and send her out of his house.  2 And when she is departed  out  of  his house,  she  may go and be another man's (wife).   3 And if the latter husband hate her,  and write her a bill of divorcement, and puts it in her  hand,  and  sends her out of his house,  or if the latter [2nd] husband, who married her, die, 4 her former [1st] husband, which sent her away [divorced her] may not marry her again, after she is defiled, because that is abomination before the Lord:  and you shall not cause the land, which the Lord has given you for an inheritance, to sin. Jeremiah 3:1  ...If a man divorce his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife,  shall the first return to her again?  Shall not that land [the woman] be greatly polluted? Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. Matthew 5:27-28  27 You have heard that it was said by them of old time, You shall not commit adultery:  28 But I say unto you, That whoever even looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 19:5-9  5 Jesus  said,  "For this reason a man shall leave father and mother and shall  cleave to his wife, they two shall be one flesh.  6 Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh.  Therefore, what God has joined together,  let  no man separate."  7 They said to Him,  "Then why did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement and to send  her away?"   8 He answered them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts, Moses  tolerated you to divorce your wives;  BUT from the beginning it was not like this.  9 And I tell you, 'Whoever shall divorce his wife, except because of immorality, and shall marry another woman, commits adultery.  And whoever marries the divorced woman commits adultery.'"  10 His disciples said to him, "If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not good to marry." Matthew 5:31-32  31 It has been said,  "Whoever shall divorce his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement." 32 But I tell you, Whoever shall divorce his wife, except because of immorality, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries the divorced woman commits adultery. Mark 10:2-12 11  He said to his disciples,  "Whoever shall divorce  his  wife,  and marry another woman, commits adultery against her. [1st or 2nd? both?]  12 And if a woman shall divorce her husband, and marry another man, she commits adultery. Luke 16:18 18  Whoever  divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery; and whoever marries the divorced woman commits adultery. Romans 7:1-3 1 Do  you  not know [you should!] brothers...how that the law  [probably law of Moses] has authority over a man as long as he lives?  2 For the woman who has a husband is bound [required] by the law to her  husband as  long as he lives,  but if the husband dies,  then she is set  free from  the  law of her husband. 3 Therefore,  if she marries  another man [implying a divorce has occurred] while her husband is still alive she  shall  be called an adulteress,  even though she  be  married  to another man. John 4:16-18 16 Jesus says to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here."  17 The woman answered and said, "I have no husband."  Jesus said to her, "You have well said, 'I have no husband',  18 For you have had five husbands; and he whom you now have is not your husband: in that you said truly."  1 Corinthians 7:39  The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband is alive,  but  if her husband dies,  she is free to marry whoever she wants,  so long as he is a Christian. 2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers... 1 Corinthians 7:10-11  10 To those who are married...the wife should not leave her husband;  but if she leaves,  let her remain unmarried (to another man),  or else be reconciled  to  her husband;  neither should the husband  divorce  his wife. 1 Corinthians 7:12-15  12 ...If any brother has a wife that does not believe, and she is willing to dwell with him, he should not divorce her.   13 If a sister has  a husband  that does not believe,  and he is willing to dwell with  her, she  should not leave him. 14 {the reason}  15 But if the unbelieving one  should leave,  let him leave;  a brother or sister is  not  under bondage  [to  restrain  the unbelieving one from leaving]  in  such  a case--God has called us to peace. 1 Corinthians 7:25-28 25 Now, concerning virgins... 26 ...it is good for a man so to be. 27 Are you  married?  Do not seek to be freed from your wife.  Have you been freed  from  a wife?  [perhaps by her death?] Do not  seek  marriage. 28 But, if you marry,  you have not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she has not sinned.  {compare verses 35-38} Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but God will judge prostitutes and adulterers. see also: Exodus 21:1-11, Ezra 9-10 , 1 Timothy 5:5-15, and 1 Corinthians 6:18-19 - All passages quote from the KJV-

The following study is lengthy, but by no means exhaustive

Some relevant contemporary books
**    Jesus and Divorce by Gordon J. Wenham and William E. Heth
**    Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible by David Instone-Brewer (on-line version, IE only) 

Preliminary considerations
A casual glance at Malachi 2:16 and Jesus' words in Matthew 19:5-8 (Genesis 2:24) will clearly show that divorce per se was not a divinely desired solution to marital problems.  As Jesus explains to his disciples, it was allowed to be written into the Law of Moses because of the "hardness of people's hearts".

That it was permitted at all is surely a sign of God's patience, but that does not alter the fact that, according to God's words, there was a consequence.  Such a consequence--produced when remarriage occurs while the first spouse still lives--is testified to in Deut 24:4 and Jeremiah 3:1.  It is the reason why the remarried woman is not lawfully permitted to return to the first husband:  She has become defiled and greatly polluted.  (Of course this says nothing about the justice of the husband's decision who hard-heartedly divorces the woman in the first place.)  And, why is it that the woman has become "defiled" or "greatly polluted"? What made her so?  How is it that this exactly agrees with Jesus' words in Matthew 5:32?

These questions are never asked nor answered in Instone-Brewer's book.  The only comment he makes is to try to explain the prohibition in Deut 24:4 as being a protection for the wife from the later claims of her first husband.  Arguing from customs in neighboring countries (at a date later than Moses), he states the first husband had the legal right to reclaim his wife at any time--and any children from a subsequent marriage(s), thus gaining the benefit of having the second husband paying for the nurture of such children.  I-B states that the prohibition in Moses' statute prevented such unfairness.  Well, of course that may be true in effect, but such an explanation hardly deals with the semantic impact of defiled! As to Jeremiah 3, I-B profers that it is just commentary on Hosea's imagery of the marriage between Israel and Yahweh.  This is just after he asserts that a redactor (editor) has been busy altering the original text.  In that case, no one now living could know what Jeremiah wrote originally.  In other words, I-B does not believe Jeremiah wrote the words we find recorded at Jer 3, so it does not really matter what it says or what it means (so there is no real need to deal with the words we find there)!   I-B must be REALLY old, to have been present to witness someone changing Jeremiah's scroll!

That divorce was permitted in Old Testament days can be denied by no one who believes the bible.  That it took place in the Church is indicated by New Testament passages which offer corrective teaching, as well as comments by the Ante-Nicene Fathers.  That it was widely accepted as an approved, casual behavior in either age can be seriously debated.

Finally, in the current debate there is a secondary, but just as important, issue.  This concerns the approach to interpreting scripture (called hermeneutic) which people use.  The usual practice is to "proof text" by forming an opinion and then looking for passages which (seem to) agree with that opinion, normally ignoring those passages that would contradict such an opinion or interpretation.  By such a process, it is possible to demonstrate that not even faith is necessary for salvation!  (see Acts 15:11 and this >> Dialogue.)  More will be said about the results of such a hermeneutic in the discussion below.

A basic rule of thumb of conservative Bible scholars and students is, "Let the Bible interpret itself whenever possible".  There are several secondary questions regarding this primary one concerning textual and literary criticism, such as, "When two or more verses point in different directions, which one should be used to interpret the other(s)?" and "If one verse is much longer than the other(s), which one(s) is the original?".  These are sometimes difficult questions to answer, depending on your view of the Bible and of history.  But often, the answers we reach are more a reflection of our presuppositions than of what the Bible actually teaches.  Perhaps a more troublesome but safer approach is to accept at the beginning of our study that all the Biblical statements are true, and then try to figure out what explanation(s) can best account for the differences, as well as the sameness.

Special vocabulary
* uncleanness (Deut 24:1):  This is the same word translated repeatedly in Leviticus 18 (KJV) as: nakedness.  See also the story of Noah's drunkenness (Gen 9:20-23).  The word is translated in other passages as shame and indecent behavior.

*duty of marriage (Ex 21:10)  A rare word, occurring in the Bible only here.  It is difficult to translate exactly for that reason, but most all translators agree it has to do with the spouses' mutual obligation  to engage in sexual intercourse with each other. (cf 1 Corinthians 7:3-5)

* immorality (Matt 5:32; 19:9)  This is the Greek word porneia from which the English words pornography and pornographic are formed.  In the Bible and pre-biblical times it referred to unlawful sexual practices, including adultery, homosexuality, sex with animals, temple prostitution, etc.  It is the word the Septuagint (LXX) most frequently uses to translate the Hebrew word for temple prostitutes.

* adultery (Matt 5:32; 19:9; Rom 7:1-3; etc.)  This is the Greek word moixao and related forms.  It carries the normal idea of betrayal of the marriage vow/oath/contract.

In the following discussion, "remarriage" should be understood to mean:  "remarriage while the other spouse is still alive".

Comments
Wenham and Heth's book is based on an earlier, French, exhaustive study of the subject.  Their book is conservative and presents the case that divorce is unacceptable and remarriage not permitted.  Their hermeneutic attempts to include ALL of Jesus' sayings and to harmonize them together into a single whole.  They do not ignore context or setting and also present some of the teachings of the early Church Fathers, as also does Instone-Brewer.

About Instone-Brewer's book
On the other side, Instone-Brewer (I-B) has done us the favor of gathering much relevant material together in one place.  The book is liberal in the sense that it presents a case for permissiveness of (limited) divorce and remarriage.  It is conservative in that it does not grant unlimited divorce or remarriage.  However, as I hope to show, his method--as scholarly and briefly exhaustive as it may be--should be classed with those who believe, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bull excrement!"  This is not to say he is not clever in his analysis nor that he fails to present much that is true;  he is and he does.  But, being the scholar he is and intent on making his case, we must assess that he deliberately chooses to avoid analysing certain phrases and refrains from pointing out certain other logical conclusions that may be reached.

As his Introduction states,

"The purpose of this book is to understand the meaning of the New Testament teaching on divorce and remarriage as it would be understood by its original readers.  This is as close as historical research can get to the elusive 'authorial intent'."  "...the background knowledge and assumptions of a first century reader were already forgotten by the second century, so that the texts were misunderstood even by the Early Church Fathers.  In order to understand the New Testament through the eyes of a first century reader, the historical context and literary background needs to be understood in great detail."

It is revealing that I-B throws a sop to Wittgenstein's disciples, implying that it is not possible to really know from his words what an author meant ("authorial intent").  But then, since we apparently cannot know Jesus' meaning(s), I-B proceeds to tell us what meaning his audience received when hearing or reading Jesus' words.  A most curious methodology...reading the minds of an audience more than 1900 years dead!  Is it any easier to know the meaning of Moses' words?  The words of Jewish Rabbi's (who apparently thought they could know the meaning of Moses' words)?  The words of the Church Fathers who apparently thought they could know the meaning of Jesus' words?  Obviously--if we follow I-B's methodology--we also cannot get very close to his own "authorial intent" through this hermeneutical contradiction.

Other examples of questionable methods will be mentioned in connection with their respective scripture discussions below.  Mostly, they involve the following assumptions on I-B's part:

1. Jesus' silence on (or lack of citing of) Exodus 21:10-11 means that he agreed with the widespread acceptance of the idea that divorce was permissible--even mandatory--for the reasons given in that passage. 
2. An implied or unspoken condition in one passage (e.g. Matt. 5:28) means that there are unspoken conditions in all similar kinds of passages [especially where it helps to support a particular point of view], e.g. Rom 7:2. 
3. (In Chapter 9)  After 70 CE  "Jesus' teaching about divorce was now utterly incomprehensible to Christians, as well as to most Jews...Christians were no longer familiar with the terms 'any matter' [Hillel] and 'matter of indecency' [Deut 24] which formed the basis of Jesus' debate with the Pharisees.

Mark's account, which did not mention these phrases (conditions from Dt 24:1.4) because they were so well known, could not be understood at all after 70 CE.  Matthew, writing a little later than Mark, reinserted these phrases, presumably because he thought that the ordinary Christian might not immediately recognize that they were the subject of the debate.  But even Matthew's account became incomprehensible once the meaning of these phrases was forgotten by Christians. 
4. The reason the wife was not permitted to return to the first husband after she had remarried was a protection on her behalf against claims the first husband might make at a later date.  This was known to occur in other cultures. 
5. Jeremiah's original words in Chapter 3 have been edited/changed. 

One wonders if there is any significance to the observable fact that in our day, most staunch supporters of the permissive doctrine write from a pastoral or counseling position rather than a theological perspective.

Questions

1. Historically, when did today's permissive interpretation of the "exception clause" of Matthew 19:9 begin? 
2. Is there any indication from the early Church writings which point to a permissive view? 
3. If we are free to choose a single scripture to base our understanding on, what prevents us from arriving at different conclusions?  (What guides our selection?) 
4. When we consider all of Jesus' statements on the subject, what result do we find?
5. How does the Bible view Marriage? 
6. What terminates a marriage? 
7. Does a person's being "born again" mean they have died to a previous marriage reletionship(s)? 
8. Is there any indication that Jesus was "raising the bar" on the moral standard of the Law regarding divorce and remarriage (a point which is denied by Instone-Brewer)? 
9. Did God command divorce?  (a look at Ezra 9-10) 
10. What should a divorced (and remarried) person do? 

Shepherd of Hermas
This document was widely accepted in the second through the fourth centuries (more in the Eastern Church than in the West) as being inspired and on a near level with Apostolic writings.  It still is accepted today in some churches.  Since Irenaeus--John's 2nd generation disciple--quotes from it approvingly, it was clearly written sometime in the first century.  It does have a major problem in that in a passage following the one below, it presents the teaching that, since baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38ff) and no other means have been revealed, any sin committed after baptism has no way of being forgiven, thus dooming the previously pure believer to condemnation in the Judgement.  As I-B correctly points out, acceptance of this teaching led directly to the practise of delayed/old-age baptism.  Tertullian softened this position slightly, allowing a single sin to be committed after baptism--but no more than one!  In the section subtitled Command Fourth, On Putting One's Wife Away for Adultery, Chapter 1,  the Pastor writes:  (online text)

Clement of Alexandria
In a brief comment in his late second century The Stromata, or Miscellanies, at the end of Book 2,  he writes (online text - go to end of document):

Tertullian
At the end of the second century, in his response Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter XXXIV--Moses, Allowing Divorce and Christ, Prohibiting It, Explained, in trying to prove to Marcion that the God of the Old Testament and the Christ of the New Testament were one and the same God, not two Gods, he writes:  (online text - do a page search on "Chapter XXXIV")

Even if we ignore such direct statements, there are enough consequential teachings, that the non-permissive view being dominant cannot be questioned.  For instance, in The Apostolic Constitutions (largely 4th Century - online text),  we find numerous limitations placed on those who held, or sought to hold, Church leadership positions (i.e. Bishop, Elder or Deacon), related to their divorce and remarriage status.  The leader who divorced might or might not be removed from office, but the leader who divorced and remarried was always removed without hope of reinstatement.  Likewise, the candidate leader who had previously divorced and remarried was never accepted.  (The result, of the leader or candidate who had married again after the death of their spouse, varied at different points in history and geographical location.)  Finally, the leader or candidate who was found guilty of adultery was stripped of all authority, even though fellowship continued dependent on confession and repentance.  The consequence of losing leadership authority due to divorce and remarriage or due to adultery clearly indicates a non-permissive interpretation of Jesus' teachings.  Did divorces occur?  That they did is just as clearly indicated by the fact that remarriage could--and did--void a Church leader's authority.

I-B states emphatically that after 70 CE Christians and Jews alike were totally unable to comprehend Jesus' teachings about divorce and remarriage.  Of course, logically, he must maintain such a position, else he could not justfiy pointing us to the past of how Jesus' audience might have understood his sayings!  His view consistently states or implies that Jesus' view of divorce and remarriage was exactly the same as the (conservative) view held by the Jews of his own day.  When that view changed after 70 CE (for historical reasons I-B outlines), then the ability to understand Jesus was lost, because the interpretive background was lost.  One word will serve to describe such an assumption: Hogwash!  Such an assumption denies outright the ability of Church leaders to accurately transmit the teachings and meanings of Jesus and the Apostles.  It also raises the greatly troubling question of how it was possible for the later Church leaders to have such a depth of understanding of Jewish history and customs on other matters (as shown by their lengthy apologetic essays), but not on divorce and remarriage.  Were they completely ignorant of the historical developments of Jewish ideas after 70 CE?  What would account for such ignorance?  What is I-B's only possible evidence that such a loss occurred?  Why, it is simply that the Church's interpretations of Jesus' and Paul's sayings do not agree with how Instone-Brewer believes Jesus' original audience would have interpreted them!  On the one hand, Mark (supposedly writing his gospel to the Romans) omits the words from Deut 24 "because they were so well known" yet on the other hand, Matthew re-inserts them "because he thought the ordinary Christian might not immediately recognize that they were the subject of the debate" (not, because Jesus said them).  Now which is the correct view?  Were the words of Deuteronomy so well known (even to the Romans), that they did not need to be mentioned?  Or were Christians (before 70 CE) so idiotic that they could not make the logical connections?  Oh well!  It does not matter, because the true meaning of Jesus' words was completly lost anyway after 70 CE!  Maybe Christians should mourn the fact that they believe in a Holy Spirit who is so unable to inspire his writers sufficiently to insure that God's moral teachings will be preserved through historical developments.

A consideration of Matthew 19:9 compared to the other verses
However, let us discover if we can, what the Bible teaches without reference to the Church's later writings.  Let us begin by assuming that the permissive interpretation of Matthew 19:9 is the correct one.  Where does that leave us?  Again, that totally depends on your method of interpreting the Bible.  If you believe that Mt 19:9 is the key to interpreting the other Jesus sayings about divorce (perhaps because you believe it was the original saying) or if you believe it is alright to choose one passage and ignore others, then you will be left with the conclusion that one who divorces their spouse because of unfaithfulness is permitted to remarry.  It needs to be stated, though, that the general rule of textual scholars is to accept the shorter saying as the original one!  On the other hand, if you believe it is not a correct approach to ignore other related scriptures, you will be left with contradictions.  After all, the gospel writers certainly believed--as did the Church--that Jesus said the words recorded in the gospels.  It must also be remembered that Matthew 19 is NOT the only passage in Matthew's gospel that contains Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5) and that the earlier passage is quite comparable with Mark's & Luke's records.  To draw conclusions from Matthew 19 alone is to imply that Jesus was teaching something different or inapplicable in the other passages.

About Romans 7:1-3
If Jesus was actually providing an excuse to permit remarriage, then how are we to explain Paul's statements in Romans 7:1-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39?  It is crystal clear from Paul's statements that--in his view--death, and only death, terminates the marriage relationship--NOT divorce! Thus, anyone who remarries after a divorce for whatever reason commits adultery if the first spouse still lives.  This view is also implied in Jesus' words to the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4), which I-B seems to have ignored.  Such views certainly do NOT contradict the other gospel sayings of Jesus on divorce, as we shall see.  (Hopefully, it is also clear that Paul's words answer the question, "Is it permissible for an unmarried person to marry a divorced person whose spouse still lives?"  The answer is, of course, "NO!"

I-B believes, however, that there is a way around this obstacle.  Observing that Jesus' seeming absolute statement in Matt 5:28 has an unspoken exception, namely, one's own wife.  So also, he opines, there is an unspoken exception in Paul's absolute statement in Rom 7:2, namely, "the woman is bound..." unless she is divorced.  How convenient an interpretive device for I-B and the permissive crowd!  And he even has an explanation for why none of the early Church Fathers ever expressed such an exception.  I-B's simple explanation is that, being understood by everyone, there would be no need to comment on it.  The more complicated--and unsubstantiated--explanation, is that after 70 CE, certainly by the second century, none of the Fathers were able to understand correctly the Biblical statements.  The "exception" in Matt 5:28 is plausible, though several of the Fathers' viewpoints deny the exception--as did the Shakers.  But it is not at all clear I-B's need to add to Paul's text to make it clear is any more justified than the Jehovah's Witnesses' addition of "other" in Colossians 1:16  (all other things).

An interesting study would be to determin whether or not all such statements in the New Testament contain such unspoken exceptions.

Matt 5, Mark & Luke
If we use Mt 19:9 to interpret Luke 18:16, a major difficulty is uncovered.  Rephrasing Jesus' words in Luke, we would be left with something like: Whoever divorces his wife (when she has not been unfaithful), and marries another woman commits adultery; and whoever marries the divorced woman commits adultery.  We should note first that the first clause repeats Mark 10:11.  As to the second clause, clearly, we must ask, "Why would the person marrying the woman be committing adultery?"  The woman was innocent of immorality.  This is obvious from the grammar and logic of Luke's sentence.  Her spouse marries another woman and thereby commits adultery.  If the wife had been guilty of immorality, then--according to the permissive school--the husband would not commit adultery by remarrying.  But Jesus says his remarriage results in adultery, so the wife was innocent.  So again the question:  "Why would the person marrying the wife be committing adultery!?"  Of course, the same difficulty occurs when examining Mark 10.

Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 are nearly identical, but the difference is revealing:
19:9 - Whoever shall divorce his wife, except because of immorality,
       and shall marry another woman, commits adultery...
5:32 - Whoever shall divorce his wife, except because of immorality,
       causes her to commit adultery...

The focus shifts (apparently) from the divorcing husband in 19:9 to the wife-being-divorced in 5:32.  The "exception clause" in 5:32 has an entirely different effect:  In 5:32, in ALL cases EXCEPT immorality, the result of a divorce will be to make the divorced wife commit adultery.  The spouse who is already guilty of immorality/adultery is "excepted" because you can't become what you already are!  You can't make a black cat black--it already IS black!  (and, a cat!)  Divorcing a wife guilty of immorality cannot make her immoral (or an adulterer) since she has already made herself thus!

We come finally to the crux of the matter.  There is no significant difference in meaning between Romans 7, Mark 10, Luke 18  and Matthew 5 (which are all shorter than Matthew 19).  Matthew 5 and 19 are remarkably parallel.  Is it not more reasonable to use the consistently agreeing (and shorter) passages to interpret the (seemingly) divergent and longer passage?  (It is!)

Exodus 21:10-11
This is a fairly simple passage to understand; what I-B turns it into is not.  In the context of the passage, an Israelite young woman is "sold" into service to another Israelite, ostensibly because the father or family was in financial straits.  The passage makes clear that this constituted a marriage relationship though the servant-wife's status appears to have been somewhat less than that of a normal wife.  Three conditions are briefly stipulated as necessary in order for the service "contract" to continue.  As I-B points out from Rabbinical sources, the details of these conditions was the subject of much legal wrangling.  Food and clothing and regular sexual intercourse.  The first two are straitforward; the third seems to be also.  But here I-B goes to work.  If "food" and "clothing" are summary terms meant to indicate the realms of physical care, then, according to I-B, the "duty of marriage" is meant to indicate the realm of "emotional care", and not just plain, normal, sexual intercourse.

I-B states that Jesus' statements in Matthew 19 present a "short list" of long-standing and current legal points concerning divorce and remarriage.  Arguing from silence with cautions he says, since Jesus certainly knew that most everyone accepted failure to provide "food, clothing, duty of marriage" was grounds for "divorce", and since Jesus remained silent on that point when he could have spoken out, he must have also accepted the same grounds, thus providing another basis for divorce to occur.  A seemingly plausible conjecture.  However, what are we to make of that supremely important word, "except"?  In the other passages, it is quite clear Jesus meant the only possible justification for divorce (not remarriage) was marital sexual unfaithfulness.  This is certainly the way the early Church interpreted his words!  It seems we do not need to "argue from silence" when the spoken words of Jesus (Matthew 5) exclude all other reasons for divorce except one.  I-B also argues that, since the Jews commonly understood and accepted that divorce of a wife meant that she was free to remarry whom she wished, since Jesus (Matt 19:9) permitted divorce of the wife he was also sanctioning her remarriage--since he did not clearly forbid it.  However, this means he also accepted the Deut. 24 passage as normative (which it was for the Jews under the Law)--but this is contradicted by his, "...for this reason...I say, from the beginning..."  (Matt 19:5,9)

Another point I-B conviently overlooks in his re-interpretation of Exodus 21 is the fact that the words are apllied only to the bond-wife and not to wives in general.  So, it may be true that a wife may justifiably seek to leave her husband on other grounds than sexual unfaithfulness--but only if she has entered into a bondservant marital agreement and...if he and she are both Jews bound under Moses' Law!

Biblical marriage
As Jesus' words in Matthew 19:4-6,8 show, marriage between a man and a woman was divinely instituted and ordained "in the beginning."  (It is a remarkable confirmation of this fact that whatever primitive society anthropologists and sociologists discover around the world, they all have a formal marriage ceremony with fairly strict behavior codes regulating such relationships.)  There was no clear prohibition recorded against multiple wives (or husbands) until the Law was given, and even then, only the kings were so limited.  Since God "joined them together" no mere human was supposed to separate them.  As Instone-Brewer shows, while being different in Judaism than in Christianity, the marriage ceremony has a long tradition in both.  The forms of that tradition teaches us that marriage has from ancient times been seen as a formal contract or covenant, invoking oaths and making promises.  Combining this with God's clearly and often stated position about breaking an oath and you may begin to understand the nature of biblical marriage as being first and foremost, a legal contract with penalty clauses included for those who "break the contract" before it's conditions are fulfilled.  One of the most familiar conditions of the marriage contract is shown by the closing words of the traditional Christian oath, "...'til death do us part".   This directly reflects what was said earlier about Paul's views of remarriage in Romans 7:1-3 and 1 Corinthian 7:39.  In God's eyes, only death terminates the marriage contract--not divorce!  Divorce--as does unfaithfulness--breaks the relationship, not the contract.  This simple fact alone is all that is necessary to explain Jesus' teachings in the gospels.  Since the contract is not terminated, then remarriage by either spouse--while both spouses still live--constitutes the sin of adultery, i.e. unfaithfulness and betrayal of the covenant.  The "permissive" group will no doubt bewail this view and lament it's harsh unfairness and injustice to the "innocent" spouse.  Too bad, but the Bible is clear:  the effects of sin are devastating and destructive to the innocent and guilty alike, but frequently moreso to the innocent.  This is why "the whole creation groans and suffers pain until now..."  (Rom 8:22).  Rather than complain that the way of God is too strict, let us dedicate ourselves to follow that way just as strictly and so avoid the painful consequences.

Christians and divorce - a higher standard?

Not under bondage
If remarriage is not permitted to those "who love God and are called according to his purpose" what about divorce?  Without even considering Malachi 2:16, we have only to listen to Paul's teaching to the Corinthians (7:10-15).  Paul tells us explicitly that the believing spouse is not to be the initiator of separation with an unbeliever (let alone with a fellow believer).  The standard, permissive interpretation of Paul's "not under bondage" (vs 15) totally misses his point.  There is no possible way he can be understood to be saying, "If your unbelieving spouse wishes to leave, let them leave; you are not under bondage to remain married to them; you are free to remarry."  In the first place, though I-B does not think so, such an interpretation absolutely contradicts what he wrote to the Romans (7:1-3).  In the second place, such an interpretation can make no use of his final concluding statement:  "God has called us to peace".  Given the permissive interpretation, what could these words possibly mean in their context?  Clearly, Paul has another thought in mind--as is indicated by the insertion in the scripture above:  the brother or sister whose unbelieving spouse wishes to leave, is "not under bondage" to restrain the unbelieving one from leaving!  In other words, as Paul says, if the unbeliever wants to leave, let them--don't fight to make them stay--"God has called us to peace".

What does Instone-Brewer make of this passage?  He observes that the traditional view of the Church has been to interpret Paul's words to mean that, the believing spouse was not to continue seeking a reconciliation.   To maintain his thesis, I-B again resorts to the device of trying to assess how people of that culture would have heard Paul in the context of their own divorce-remarriage laws.  In the Graeco-Roman world it was easy for one spouse to simply abandon the other, thus effectively divorcing them.  There was little the other spouse could do about it.  I-B says, in such a case to say that "not under bondage" to pursue reconciliation is not a reasonable interpretation since the believer had no legal recourse or other method to effect a reconciliation.  The separation-divorce has occurred; of course they are "not under bondage" to pursue reconciliation!  In I-B's view, that would be like saying, "after the horses have left the barn, you are not bound to keep them from leaving".  Sounds plausible, except for two factors.  One, Where in the world did the early Church get their interpretation?  Two, Why does Paul emphasize the aspect of the unbelieving one leaving:  "If they leave...let them leave"?   The normal understanding of such a statement would be:  '...do not prevent them from leaving'.  I-B thinks this is nonsense since there was nothing the believer could have done to prevent them from going.  Nevertheless, that is what Paul said.  On the other hand, if we consider the logical consequences of I-B's analysis, the result is this:  After Paul has stated in several different ways the desirability--even the necessity--of remaining married to one's current spouse (even to an unbeliever), he suddenly reverses himself and says, 'in such a case, you may marry someone else' (as long as they are a believer, vs 39).  Now, that seems like nonsense!

More emphatically, in 1 Corinthians 7:10ff, Paul says that neither believing husband nor wife are to divorce their believing spouse.  But, understanding that problems do sometimes occur, he stipulates that IF a wife should leave her husband (one suspects a heartless, cruel, beast of a man), she is NOT free to marry another man, but should strive to be reconciled with her own husband.  Again note:  the separation did not terminate the marriage!  Because Paul says, the "separated" wife should be reconciled to her husband!  He doesn't say, "...to that man to whom she used to be married."  That "separated" probably means "divorce" is indicated by the parallel structure of the second clause of the same verse and the similar but reversed parallel structure in verse 13.

But (you may think), how hard-hearted such a position is!  How cruel God must be to have such strict rules!  How can a good-hearted, kind wife continue living with an abusive husband who beats her up physically and verbally?  God surely couldn't intend she should remain in such a relationship!  (Of course, the obverse situation also occurs, with diminuative, wildcat women taking on their halfback-sized husbands.)  But, according to scripture, this is exactly what God has willed.  How can this be (you wonder)?  Can anyone suffer such abuse and humiliation?  The answer is, "Yes!"   In 1 Samuel 25 we find the story of a righteous, loving, beautiful woman who had been given in marriage (according to the customs of the day) to a real "nice" man.  Actually, he was three kinds of a fool!  Nabal was his name and one day he was asked a favor in return for some unasked-for help that had been given.  Being a rich, self-centered type of idiot, he declined to show kindness when it was due.  That would have cost him his life except for the intercession of his loving wife.  All she had to do was remain silent and her marital troubles would have been solved; being a righteous wife, she could not remain silent.

A second, less well known example can be found in Augustine's Confessions.  Therein, he tells the story of his mother who prayed night and day (successfully) for his and his father's conversion.  At that time, Augustine was just a young man-about-town, a real dandy who just loved to find a new skirt to lift.  Oddly enough, according to Augustine, all the married men in his home town had despicable reputations for abusing their wives  (this of course was W-A-Y before such social reforms as spouse abuse clinics and domestic violence laws).  That is, all the men except his own father!   But--he tells us--that was NOT because his father didn't beat his mother!  NOooo!  Augustine guesses, his father was probably worse than all of them!  So why did his father not have an equally ruined reputation?  The secret was, because his mother--being obedient to the Law of Jesus--never gossiped about her plight.  At least not to her neighbors.  At night after his dad had passed out and he himself had collapsed from a late night of debauchery, his mother would bend her knees to the King of Heaven and pour out her troubles where it could do the most good, begging that the King might do something to save their miserable hides.  Why?  Wouldn't it have been more fitting to remain silent and hope they would go to hell and suffer their "just deserts"?    But the love of Jesus is not like that!  If it were, he "could have called ten thousand angels" to deal with his little problem (us!).

When someone bewails the strictness of God's rules, they're generally forgetting that the rules are their for our benefit and safety, not our hardship.  It is because people continuously strive to find ways around those rules, to find ways to bend them, or to go as close as possible to their "edge" without going over  (exciting....isn't it?) that our lives have such hardship.  "Don't put your finger in the fire...you'll get burned!"  But little Johnny answers, "Aw...I want to find out for myself!  I won't get burned!  What does 'get burned' mean?  You're always telling me what to do and not do!"  OUUUUCH!  MOMMAAAAA...!   (Will he listen the next time???  probably not.)

In his teachings on divorce and remarriage, was Jesus "raising the bar" on the moral standards set by Moses' Law?  Instone-Brewer doesn't think so.  But then, how should we account for the disciples' reaction to Jesus' words (Mt 19:10)?  Apparently, his disciples--to whom Jesus "spoke plainly, not in parables"--were not among those who "heard these teachings differently" from today's non-permissive interpretation.  And actually, Jesus was not "raising the bar" so much as he was resetting the bar back to where it had been "in the beginning" even as Jesus himself said.  And is it likely that he who changed the emphasis from physically committing adultery to even thinking about it (Matt 5:27-28), would not similarly transform the marriage relationship?

Ezra 9-10
So what should those do who find themselves divorced and remarried?  Or maybe, as believers, having made the unsanctioned  mistake of marrying an unbeliever who is still an unbeliever?  About the only example we have in scripture of a similar situation is related in Ezra 9-10.

This passage is presented by Instone-Brewer as a primary example of what heartbreak can occur from following an inflexible, strict policy.  In actuality, it is a primary example of the heartbreak that occurs when people--be they followers of God or not--do not obey his commands.

As Ezra relates, some time after the first wave of returnees left Babylon and re-entered Palestine, the Law was finally read to the people.  Then it was that they discovered and understood in detail why that terrible tragedy had taken place.  But more, they discovered they were still committing the same blunders that had produced that tragedy.  In particular, hundreds, if not thousands of men, including not just the common people, but even priests and rulers, had married non-Israelite women.  This had taken place long enough before that children had already been born.  Terrified that God might again punish them severely, they decided to separate themselves from all foreign wives and the associated children.

Instone-Brewer would have us ultimately blame God for this decision on the basis that the men were strictly following his commands.  But, a careful reading of the passage will reveal the following facts.  According to the account given, the people did not consult God about the decision to divorce, but acted out of fear.  There is no indication of a prophetic pronouncement stating a need to separate themselves in such a manner.  Likewise, there is nothing in Moses' Law requiring such a decree.  The Law states they should never have formed such unions in the first place. The "separation" the Law requires is separation before a union takes place!   However, as someone said, it doesn't help much to shut the barn door after the horses have left.

Given the silence of scripture on what to do about a marriage that shouldn't have taken place, all that can be advised must be offered with great care, with an eye both to compassion as well as justice.  I tend to agree with those who would lament the decision of Ezra's peers as being harsh toward the women and children so affected.  On the other hand, we can not know with certainty to what extent the customs and attitudes of those wives had already begun to redirect the men away from the paths of God and so, to endanger the social and religious life of the returnees.  But, on the other hand, when the men married the women, it is likely that before God they swore oaths of faithfulness.  By divorcing the women, they would have to break one strong command to keep another.  And of course, that says nothing about the injustice of leaving the women and children to provide for themselves afterward--if that indeed is what happened.

Solutions?
In our day, hopefully our lives and standards have been "leavened" by the influence of Church, the gospel, and the Spirit of Christ.  It is plain from Paul's statements, that if one spouse is converted to Christ, but not the other, the new Christian has no options concerning divorce.  On that basis, we may with some caution consider that the Christian who disobediently marries an unbeliever is in much the same sort of situation.  As to the person who has married a divorced person whose spouse is still living, or the divorced person who has already remarried, the situation is a little more difficult.  From what has already been said above, it is hoped they will recognize they have sinned--and involved their new spouse in sin.  It is too late to prevent that.  But, according to Jesus, all manner of sin (except one) may be forgiven.  That does NOT erase the sin nor the consequences of the sin.  It simply means that, by God's grace and Christ's sacrifice, the sinner(s) may be cleansed and be removed from the roll of those headed for judgment.  (One of the consequences that should be recognized--but too often is not in today's churches--is that such a person is disqualified from ever being an elder, bishop or deacon.)   Should such a couple divorce yet again and thereafter remain unmarried (at least until all previous spouses have died)?  I suspect that God's will is probably more closely followed if the most recent oath made is kept and not broken, ever again--especially where there are children to be considered.  This of course presupposes that confession and repentance have occurred.  That does not mean that those who are convinced they should separate totally, or at least to the extent of "sleeping in separate bedrooms" are wrong.  Everyone must live consistently with the amount of faith they have--but still within the will of God.which is clearly revealed in scripture.

This advice is mostly for Christians who have already committed themselves to obey Jesus.  But marriage was ordained "from the beginning" and so God's will concerning marriage pertains to everyone, believer and unbeliever alike.  It does not much matter--from a judgment stance--if an unbeliever follows God's rules for marriage or not; if they die in unbelief they are condemned already (John 3:18).  But, if they ever do convert and accept God's lordship and forgiveness, they will have much to regret if they have to face the consequences of not being told and/or not following those rules.

Conclusions
Rather than trying to determine what we should believe and do based on speculations of how the Jews in Jesus' audience might have interpreted ("heard") his words, it seems of much greater importance to determine what Jesus actually meant by his teaching.  Perhaps the more reasonable method to use (other than to examine his words ourselves) would be to look back to those who followed Christ and examine how they understood him.  Just maybe, Paul's requirements for elders, bishops and deacons are indicative:  "He should be the husband of one wife."  Though there were differences even in the early Church of how best to interpret this "one", it was always a matter of how strictly, not how loosely--and they never countenanced divorce and remarriage as acceptable for Church leaders.

While the pastoral compassion of our time may be lauded for its empathy, especially compared with the harsh condemnation of divorced people in earlier ages, it tends to go too far in extending forgiveness.  I personally know of a case where an adulterous, 40-something man "came forward" one Sunday with his new, 20-something "wife" to place membership with the church.  Meanwhile, the wife he had divorced as well as his children were sitting in the pews watching in shock.  That was no doubt painful enough.  But to make matters still worse, the preacher--an otherwise righteous man--welcomed them as a "new couple".  This decision was vocally opposed by no one present, even though everyone there knew the situation!  Whether subsequent developments had any direct connection would be hard to prove, but the preacher shortly developed throat cancer, could not continue preaching, and died soon thereafter.  The divorced wife, who had the care of the children, was more or less forced by financial circumstances and loneliness to remarry.

What is the significance of Instone-Brewer's book?  It seems hardly logical that a loving God, who wants his creatures to obey Him for their own good and safety, would so hide His will in dusty old manuscripts, secreted away in distant museums and archives, that it requires the years-long, laborious efforts of a scholar to reveal it.  Yet that is basically what Instone-Brewer would have us believe.  We're not talking about some obscure historical reference, but about something that God apparently feels very strongly about and that was ordained from the very beginning.  This point is so obvious that it is remarkable Instone-Brewer could miss it.  On the other hand, so much scholarship today is aimed at placating the masses and confirming them in their error in order to gain a following that it is not really remarkable at all.  Truly was it written, "God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise."  He who tells people what they want to hear, will seldom be telling them the truth.

By direct observation, study and experience, it would seem that today's "pastoral care and counseling" movement is dedicated to directing hurting people to look inward to self-concern instead of outward to the Christ who heals and to the forgiveness of the one(s) who hurt them.  It is often the case that the advice given to such self-concerned ones--focused on their hurting--runs counter to the will of God as revealed by his Word.  It is a normal, worldly re-action to want to strike out at what has hurt us.  Often we include God among the guilty and seek to blame him, when we should be blaming the sinfulness of the world.  It is not the way of Christ to re-act, but to act!  It is the way of Christ to persevere with love in the face of offense and humiliation.  This is the cross that Christians have been told to take up and bear.  It is Christ living in us that makes it possible--not a liberal, permissive attitude to God's rules, or a coddling, false, pastoral caring which would offer a misleading sympathy.

Either Christians serve an AWESOME God...or we don't.  It is past time to decide which is the truth.