Reviews Divorce and Remarriage by David Instone-Brewer
Read the book    Buy a copy	"For some readers, the author's conclusions may be profoundly liberating, resolving difficult pastoral problems. For others, the argument that the mainstream Church has been so wrong on what has usually been taken to be the apparently unambiguous teaching of Jesus may be profoundly disturbing, raising problems potentially greater than those that it solves."   Andrew Gregory Expository Times July 2004	Read portions    Buy a copy

Full review:
	This is an ambitions and wide-ranging book. Its conclusions are as follows: (1) 'Both Jesus and Paul affirmed the Old Testament grounds for divorce' (which, argues the author, are adultery, neglect and abuse); (2) 'Both Jesus and Paul condemned divorce without valid grounds and discouraged divorce even for valid grounds;' (3) 'Both Jesus and Paul condemned remarriage after an invalid divorce, but not after a valid divorce'. Such conclusions, notes the author, are very different from the Church's traditional interpreta-tion of the New Testament. He argues that this is because the traditional interpretation arose in a Church which had already lost sight of its Jewish roots. Therefore it was unable to understand the teaching of Jesus and Paul as it would have been heard by the original audience. For some readers, the author's conclusions may be profoundly liberating, resolving difficult pastoral problems. For others, the argument that the mainstream Church has been so wrong on what has usually been taken to be the apparently unambiguous teaching of Jesus may be profoundly disturbing, raising problems potentially greater than those that it solves. On traditional interpretations, Matthew has softened the absolute teaching of Jesus, as found in Mark and in Luke, by offering an exception to his teaching. But, argues Instone-Brewer, this is incorrect. Mark and Luke wrote in a form of tech-nical shorthand that their original readers would have understood to allow remarriage after a valid divorce. All that Matthew does differently is to spell out in full what they recorded more briefly. Instone-Brewer's case rests on his discussion of a wide range of primary evidence, but this is the crux on which his case depends. I for one have some doubts, but others will need to make their own decisions. This accessible and eirenically written but controversial book deserves a wide audience among scholars and pastors as well as others with an interest in this thorny topic. Andrew Gregory, Keble College, Oxford
Read more reviews...