# Instone Brewer and Divorce



## arapahoepark (Jul 20, 2015)

I am wondering if any of you are aware of Instone Brewer's work on Remarriage and divorce in the Bible. Here is something explaining it. http://www.instonebrewer.com/visualSermons//Jesus-Divorce/_Sermon.htm
Basically he believes that there are 4 grounds of divorce, adultery, emotional or physical neglect (per Exo. 21:10) and desertion. He claims that Jesus was silent on the implementation of Exodus 21:10, and therefore in agreement with it, and that he responded only to the interpretation of Deut. 24:1 not the previous passage that apparently Shammaites and Hillelites agreed on.
What do you guys think? Wrong or could the neglect of clothes, food and love be subsumed under Paul's desertion? Is this what Paul is alluding to?


----------



## Edward (Jul 21, 2015)

Not going to watch the video, but there are only two grounds for divorce - infidelity and desertion. There has been significant debate in recent years as to what might be encompassed under each of those words. If someone has identified additional, non-Biblical, grounds, then those would be non-Biblical. I would refer you to the Westminster Confession: "Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage".


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 21, 2015)

Bahsen seems to agree with Instone Brewer....
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe058.htm


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jul 21, 2015)

Trent,

I'm not going to defend Bahnsen, but I will say those two articles are coming to different conclusions. Bahnsen IS NOT saying the same thing as Instone. Instone is quite clear he rejects the basic biblical principles. First, Instone quotes from the Ketubah which is an outside Rabbinic source. Then he makes his claims on such a source _rather then the bible_. Second, Bahnsen is starting with the two biblical allowances for divorce (however, he is using the Law to back his arguments AND he is a theonomist which would make him more consistent). Third, I think you need to re-read Bahsen and really look at what he is saying. While Instone is using an outside source to give bogus (unbiblical) conclusions, Bahsen is searching the Word of God to give an answer.


----------



## yeutter (Jul 21, 2015)

Prof. Robert Gagnon posted his links to his written works on divorce and remarriage in the teachings of Jesus and St. Paul on his Facebook page. This includes his interactions with Dr. Instone Brewer.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 22, 2015)

What intrigues me on the issue is that it _seems_ Instone Brewer is defending, to a degree, the Third use of the moral law. The principles of the case study, he believes would apply to all wives not just slave wives, something Bahnsen agrees with. I do feel uneasy of the idea of divorce for 'neglect' which as Gagnon has said is big enough to drive a truck through. I do think this 'new view' does need to be examined and refuted if not Biblical.
What do you think?


----------



## Ken (Jul 22, 2015)

Here is what Jesus said concerning the matter of divorce:
Matthew 5:32: _"32 but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."_

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 24, 2015)

Any other thoughts on Exodus 21:10 and its application for today, if there are any?


----------



## Ken (Jul 24, 2015)

arap said:


> Any other thoughts on Exodus 21:10 and its application for today, if there are any?



How about Deuteronomy 24:1: "_1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house._"

This was being disputed during the first century between the more liberal followers of Hillel and the stricter followers of Shammai, these are two roots of Judaism. The school of Hillel claimed that divorce could be for as trivial a reason as burning a meal or being too fat; whereas, the school of Shammai believed the law was clear that it must be much more serious, for infidelity.

9:10 A The House of Shammai say, “A man should divorce his wife only because he has found grounds for it in unchastity,
B “since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything (Deut. 24:1 ).”
C And the House of Hillel say, “Even if she spoiled his dish,
D “since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything.
E R. Aqiba says, “Even if he found someone else prettier than she,
F “since it is said, And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes (Deut. 24:1).”
Neusner, J. (1988). The Mishnah : A new translation (p. 487). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

This fierce debate between the two houses Judiasim could very well be what prompted this conversation with Jesus:
Matthew 19:7–9: "_7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery._"

As has been pointed out in an earlier response, I believe Jesus teaching is consistent with the Westminster Confession:
_V. Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.
VI. 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 willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage; wherein a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it, not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case._

Sorry, I got off track 

Here is what Paul says concerning the matter of Exodus 21:10:
1 Corinthians 7:3: "_3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband._"

If you are wounder if this pertains to carnal relationship with your wife, the answer is yes.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 24, 2015)

Ken said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> > Any other thoughts on Exodus 21:10 and its application for today, if there are any?
> ...



What of v. 11, where she shall go free?


----------



## Ken (Jul 24, 2015)

> What of v. 11, where she shall go free?



Great question!!!

Note, the discussion is the law concerning Hebrew servants, the background is the father gave the son a servant to be his wife and the son married another woman. The issue is who is going to provide for the servant who became the sons wife? The woman is to have three needs met, food, clothing and carnal relations. If the son does not meet this obligation the father is required to either figure out how to met these needs or set her free.

This is Ken's loose paraphrasing 

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 25, 2015)

Ken said:


> > What of v. 11, where she shall go free?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok. According to Instone Brewer's logic, (and apparently that of Jews at the time), is that if it applied to slaves how much mpre for wives?


----------



## lynnie (Jul 25, 2015)

Just for general interest, from a PCA position paper, a Puritan view that if the wife must leave because of cruelty, the abusing husband is considered the deserter. 

http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/divorce-remarriage.pdf


_For if one party drive away the other with great fierceness and cruelty, there is
cause of desertion, and hee is to bee reputed the deserter. But if hee obstinately
neglect, that necessary departure of the other avoyding the eminent danger, hee
himselfe in that playeth the deserter.‘30

The passage is not a model of clarity in either its original Latin or English translation,
but, taking the words in their simple sense, Ames seems to be acknowledging that such a
desertion as can absolve the innocent partner of any remaining obligation to the marriage
can consist of the imposition of intolerable conditions threatening physical safety and
security as well as of physical departure per se. This interpretation gathers strength from
the fact, to be elaborated below, that such a point of view was well established among
reformed authorities on the continent where Ames‘ professional career was largely spent._

(pgs 17, 18 re Ames)


----------



## Reformed Roman (Jul 25, 2015)

I have seen cases of physical abuse over a binder of years, even a woman physically abusing her husband. That is always the toughest thing for me to figure out with divorce, physical abuse


----------



## Miss Marple (Jul 26, 2015)

To me that is more clear. Perhaps I over-simplify. But if you can kill a man if he is trying to kill you or cause you great bodily harm, it seems to me you can and should divorce him. The commandment requires that we protect our lives.


----------



## Ken (Jul 27, 2015)

arap said:


> Ken said:
> 
> 
> > > What of v. 11, where she shall go free?
> ...



A couple of things to take into consideration, she was a Hebrew slave; which means, she would eventually gain her freedom based on sabbatical years unless she decided to become a bound slave. The issue is that she became the wife; thus, she is no longer a slave and is required to be treated as a wife not a slave.

Note: In God's eyes, the wife was made from the rib, Adam's side, to come along side the man as an equal partner in the relationship, she was not made from the foot to be walked on.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------

