Marriage certificate translation

(Proquest Information and Learning: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.)

David Instone-Brewer. Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. xi + 355 pp. $26.00.

Dr. Instone-Brewer, an expert in rabbinic studies and research fellow at Tyndale House, an evangelical research center in Cambridge, England, divides the material into eleven chapters. He discusses: (1) the Ancient Near East ("Marriage is a Contract," pp. 1-19); (2) the Pentateuch ("The Divorce Certificate Allows Remarriage," pp. 20-33); (3) the later Prophets ("Breaking Marriage Vows is Condemned," pp. 34-58); (4) the intertestamental period ("Increasing Rights for Women," pp. 59-84); (5) rabbinic teaching ("Increasing Grounds for Divorce," pp. 85-132); (6) Jesus' teaching ("Divorce on Biblical Grounds Only," pp. 133-88); (7) Paul's teaching ("Biblical Grounds Include Neglect," pp. 189-212); (8) marriage vows ("Vows Inherited From the Bible and Judaism," pp. 213-37); (9) history of divorce ("Interpretations in Church History," pp. 238-67); (10) modern reinterpretations ("Different Ways to Understand the Biblical Text," pp. 268-99); and (11) pastoral conclusions ("Reversing Institutionalized Misunderstandings," pp. 300-314). A full bibliography and detailed indexes follow.

As the author states his conclusions in the second paragraph of his introduction, they may introduce this review as well: "Both Jesus and Paul condemned divorce without valid grounds and discouraged divorce even for valid grounds. Both Jesus and Paul affirmed the Old Testament grounds for divorce. The Old Testament allowed divorce for adultery and for neglect or abuse. Both Jesus and Paul condemned remarriage after an invalid divorce, but not after a valid divorce" (p. ix). Instone-Brewer sees, of course, that these conclusions differ substantially from what he calls "the traditional church interpretation of the New Testament texts" according to which divorce with remarriage was not allowed on any grounds (ibid., cf. p. 304). This acknowledgement reflects the fact that he writes in an Anglican context in which this "traditional" interpretation of the church has much more influence, as it does in the Roman Catholic church (cf. p. 306), than in Lutheran or Reformed or more generally evangelical contexts. This "traditional interpretation" goes back to the early church fathers. While Instone-Brewer claims that the early church fathers had forgotten the background knowledge and the assumptions of the first-century readers by the second century, he must surely be aware that in many parts of the world, and in many Christian denominations, the "traditional" interpretation of the church is no longer traditional, as it has been replaced by the "tradition" that anything can be forgiven and that therefore anything is possible, with the result that divorce for just about any reason and remarriage in any situation is allowed by a majority of local congregations and their pastors, both in North America and in the continental European churches.

As regards the OT evidence, placed in the context of covenants of the Ancient Near East, Instone-Brewer argues that the correct phrase for a marriage agreement in the OT is "marriage contract" as the proper translation for Hebrew berit (p. 19), written and enacted exactly like any other business "covenant." The narratives and legal stipulations of the Pentateuch assume that both polygamy and divorce occur; neither is criticized. Compared with the laws of the surrounding cultures, the distinctiveness of the Pentateuch "lies in the relatively greater rights of women within marriage and remarriage, and the greater rights to divorce and remarry"; entirely unique was the right of a (divorced) woman to a divorce certificate "which affirmed that she was free to remarry" (p. 33). The prophets Hosea, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah all refer to the fact that Israel, the nation to whom God was "married," was unfaithful and was thus divorced, but that God was merciful and after a time of separation sought reconciliation. Malachi condemns all Israelites/Judeans who break their marriage vows. In Second Temple Judaism we find that the rights of women were increased, e.g., women who were divorced without good cause had a guarantee that they would receive their dowry back, and that both polygamy and divorce started to be criticized. The Qumran exegetes seem to have been the first to actually forbid polygamy, which had been allowed in Mosaic law. Instone-Brewer sides with those who argue that divorce was allowed in Qumran, a view that scholars like J. Murphy-O'Connor continue to dispute. In the first century B.C., Simeon ben Shetah evidently tried to discourage divorce, while at the same time procuring greater financial security for divorced women. Rabbinic literature indicates that the grounds for divorce were expanded in Judaism. Valid divorces could be based on infertility, sexual unfaithfulness, or, according to their interpretation of Exod 21:10-11, material and emotional neglect. The older view that only men could initiate a divorce is incorrect: a woman could ask a court to persuade her husband to divorce her if she suffered neglect. Rabbis in the school of Hillel interpreted dabar in Deut 24:1 in the sense of "any matter," i.e., any grounds beyond indecency (adultery) and neglect, while the rabbis following Shammai declared "any matter" divorces invalid. Divorce did not carry social stigma, and remarriage was expected, although remarriage after an invalid divorce was regarded as adultery.

As regards Jesus' teaching, the accounts in Mark 10 and Matthew 19 can be traced back to an abbreviated account of a debate between Pharisees and Jesus about the interpretation of the phrase ...eervat dabar ("matter of indecency") in Deut 24:1. Both the exegesis of the Pharisees and of Jesus need to be unpacked against the background of rabbinical debates. Jesus agreed with some of the things taught by some Jewish groups: he sided with the Qumran community concerning monogamy and with the Shammaites concerning the interpretation of "matter of indecency." But he stood out in his declaration that "any matter" divorces are invalid.

Instone-Brewer interprets Jesus as teaching six matters: (1) marriage should be monogamous; (2) marriage should be lifelong; (3) divorce is never compulsory; (4) divorce should be avoided unless the erring partner refuses to repent; (5) marriage is optional; (6) "any matter" divorces are invalid. The Pharisees held the position that divorce was compulsory on the grounds of adultery (and probably already before A.D. 70 even in cases of suspected adultery), which conflicted with Jesus's teaching that God wants marriage to be lifelong. Jesus argues against the Pharisees that Moses did not "command" divorce, but merely "allowed" it, which means that even in cases of adultery divorce is not mandatory (p. 143). His comment on the "hardness of heart" seems to imply, in the context of Jer 4:4 LXX, that the divorce law should be used only if the guilty partner stubbornly refused to repent and give up adulterous behavior (p. 146). In the exception clause Matt 19:9 ("except for indecency," cf. 5:32), porneia is most plausibly regarded as the most accurate translation of ...ervat dabar in Deut 24:1 (pp. 152-59): "any matter" divorces are invalid; divorce is allowed only in cases of (stubbornly maintained) adultery. Since the interpretation of porneia is disputed, as is the interpretation of the term "hardness of heart," Instone-Brewer acknowledges that "it is not certain that Jesus was teaching this" (p. 181), i.e., it is not certain that Jesus taught that divorce is allowable if there is a stubborn refusal to stop committing adultery. Since Jesus did not comment on the other grounds of divorce derived from Exod 21:10-11, since everyone would assume that Jesus recognized that there were other OT grounds for divorce, and since the wording of Jesus' exception clause is parallel to the Shammaite ruling in the divorce debate, Instone-Brewer surmises that Jesus regarded these other grounds for divorce (material and emotional neglect) as acceptable.

In his chapter on Paul, Instone-Brewer again presents fairly and succinctly all major options of interpretation. He sees Paul as emphasizing that a believer should never cause a divorce, either by separating from the spouse or by neglecting marital obligations. If a Christian spouse is deserted by her (pagan, unbelieving) husband, she has a right to divorce because of the neglect of the marital obligations. The phrase "not bound" in 1 Cor 7:15 should be understood as implying the freedom to remarry, as an obvious implication in the first-century world.