|
|
|
| Published reviews |
(Full text of the original reviews. Opening paragraph
was extracted later.)
|
| Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society,
December 2003 |
|
Apart from Craig Keener's . . . And Marries Another (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1991), David Instone-Brewer's book is the most
paradigm-challenging study of the NT divorce texts that I have
encountered.
Read full
review...
|
| Clergy Journal, February 2003 |
|
The layout of the book is remarkably clear and greatly aids the
usability of the work. Each chapter begins with a short summary of
the conclusions for that chapter, .so that the reader is able to
read the work at one time or in separate units.
Read full
review...
|
| Regent's Reviews Spring 2003 |
|
Clarity of content (even when argued through much detail) as well
as layout are hallmarks of this fine book… If Instone-Brewer's
approach to the text is right - and this reader found him persuasive
- those of us whose pastoral instincts have been more open to the
possibility of divorce and remarriage may find freshly argued
biblical support beyond the 'spirit of Jesus' or 'forgiveness and a
fresh start' to which we may previously have appealed.
Read full
review...
|
| Religion and Theology June 2003 |
|
The fruit of tremendous research and superb scholarship. Some
readers will not hold identical conclusions, but all will be
challenged by the author's pastoral sensitivity and his command of
the pertinent literature.
Read full
review...
|
| Trinity Journal Spring 2003 |
|
Arguably the best biblical study on the question of divorce and
remarriage. Even if the reader disagrees with his conclusions, or
with his suggestions regarding pastoral situations, he will enjoy
the book as a rich resource for the OT, Jewish, and NT material. The
presentation of primary texts and their meaning is superb, the
discussion of dissenting views is fair, and the summaries are
concise and to the point.
Read full
review...
|
| Theological Studies, March 2004 |
|
I.-B. convinces us because our journey has been a careful
step-by-step process, beginning with the meaning of the marriage
contract in the ancient Near East milieu as a whole through the
Church's interpretations from the second through the twentieth
century.
Read full
review...
|
| Christianity and Renewal |
|
The entire book is well documented with clear notes as to where
he gets his ideas from and why the Bible means what he thinks it
does.
Read full
review...
|
| Expository Times July 2004 |
|
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.
Read full
review...
|
| Recherches de Science Religieuse 92/2 (2004)
|
|
Review in French. Translated extract: It has the exegetical plan
of … gathering the findings of an honest reading of the texts, to
provides interesting ideas for theologians, moralists and similarly
for pastors.
Read full
review...
|
| Currents in Theology 6- Mission April
2004 |
|
I-B holds that the background knowledge and assumptions of a
first-century reader were already forgotten by the second century,
leading to misunderstanding of the biblical texts by the early
church fathers.
Read full
review...
|
| Theologische Literaturzeitung 129 (2004)
7/3 |
|
I.-B.'s pastoral concern is commendable. But I doubt that it is
helped by ignoring past and present differences of opinion on
divorce and remarriage, both in Judaism and Christianity.
Read full
review...
|
| Jahrbuch fur Evangelikale Theologie, 17 (2003)
|
|
Review in German. Translated extract: There is a welcome emphasis
on exegetical context in this study which one misses in many other
contributions to the subject.
Read full
review...
|
| Review of Biblical Literature, August 2003 (second
review posted) |
|
While I am sympathetic with Instone-Brewer's goals, the book does
not hold up to its promise. His argumentation is frequently based on
one or two texts and is often developed through leaps in logic,
broad assumptions, speculation, and/or overgeneralization.
Read full
review...
|
| Religious Studies Review July 2003 |
|
A commendable volume on a controversial subject.
Read full
review...
|
| Kairos No. 332003 |
|
Instone-Brewer has provided us a book that is not only a valuable
resource for the discussion of the divorce and remarriage, but also
a valuable lesson in hermeneutics. It demonstrates the necessity for
a good understanding of the social, literary and legal context for
correct interpretation.
Read full
review...
|
| INTAMS Review, 9 (2003) (International Academy for
Marital Spirituality) |
|
He raises the question, rather bravely, whether perhaps "the Holy
Spirit would not have allowed the Church to be confused about such
an important matter for so many centuries" (304), but sides with the
biblical scholars in interpreting scripture directly, rather than
through tradition. His pastoral conclusions and recommendations
regarding divorce and remarriage are sensitive and consistent, and
based in part on his own experience as a Baptist minister.
Read full
review...
|
| Theology (UK) July/August 2003 |
|
Every chapter begins with a synopsis of where it is going, and
ends with a longer set of conclusions that emerge from the chapter.
The result is that a book that could have been impossibly complex
and thoroughly confusing is actually marvellously easy to find one's
way through.
Read full
review...
|
| Family Ministry, Summer 2003 |
|
He demonstrates a methodology of study that would he quite
helpful in the consideration of many questions that puzzle or
disturb contemporary readers of the Bible.
Read full
review...
|
| Review of Biblical Literature, May 2003
|
|
The author is quite up to date on the literature dealing with
divorce and remarriage in the biblical world, as well as with
secondary literature on the subject in the ancient world, quoting
texts and studies on relevant sources in Akkadian, Hebrew, Aramaic,
Greek, and Latin. It is refreshing to see a theological treatment of
this controversial subject informed from all of these different
fields.
Read full
review...
|
| Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 65, 2003 |
|
Instone-Brewer has helpfully gathered much lore, particularly
that of early (rabbinic) Judaism, that is clearly relevant to any
assessment of the NT logia on divorce.
Read full
review...
|
| IZBG 49:2002-2003 |
|
A fully annotated scholarly study.
Read full
review...
|
| The Church Times 1/17/03 (UK) |
|
If you want to interpret Jesus and Paul as legislating for us
today, and yet be pastorally concerned for divorce and remarriage,
this is probably as good an argument as any other. However, I would
argue that the Gospels do not contain "rules", nor was Jesus
legislating in a "court". His rigorous teaching on marriage
challenges us with the high ideals of God, as does his other
material on "giving everything away" or "turning the other cheek".
Read full
review...
|
| Methodist Recorder, January 23, 2003 |
|
A fascinating read and a persuasive argument. It forced me to
reconsider much that I had taken for granted in my understanding of
what the New Testament says on one of today's most important issues.
Read full
review...
|
| Themelios Autumn 2003 |
|
This book is essential reading for anyone concerned to develop a
biblical understanding of divorce and remarriage. The author
presents the fruits of many years of research in a clear, gripping
and enjoyable way. The major problem with his case is that it is
difficult to present it on the basis of Scripture alone, without a
thorough background knowledge of Jewish literature.
Read full
review...
|
| Society for Old Testament Study 2003 |
|
I-B. has cast his net widely, and much of what is of interest to
readers here will be found in the more academic discussion which
goes on in the footnotes.
Read full
review...
|
| Journal of Psychology and Christianity Vol. 22 No.
3, 2003 |
|
Many readers will discover that Instone-Brewer challenges some
commonly held interpretations of Jesus or Paul's position on divorce
and remarriage… With the relatively recent discovery and translation
of ancient manuscripts such as the Qumran texts, biblical scholars
now have access to this critical missing data. For some this will be
disconcerting. For others, it will be a breath of fresh air.
Read full
review...
|
| The Bible Today September/October 2002 |
|
He makes his case in a serious manner but at times seems to
overwork in making the gospel passages fit his theory.
Read full
review...
|
| New Testament Abstracts, Vol. 46, No.
3,2002 |
|
The volume traces the history of divorce and remarriage… and
[includes] pastoral conclusions-reversing institutionalized
misunderstandings.
Read full
review...
|
| EthicsDaily.com (Baptist Center for Ethics),
08/29/02 |
|
The depth of research and critical insights reveal a study that
engages biblical texts incisively and bridges the gap between the
ancient and modern world effectively.
Read full
review...
|
| Christian Observer October 2002 |
|
The subject of divorce and remarriage is discussed in detail with
a full scholarly background in this well-written book… This is a
great reference for the busy pastor.
Read full
review...
|
| Theology Digest, Winter 2002 |
|
He seeks "to understand the meaning of the New Testament teaching
on divorce and remarriage as it would have been understood by its
original readers."
Read full
review...
|
| Churchman, Autumn 2004 |
|
This thesis is groundbreaking... [it] cannot be ignored. If it
can be sustained, it has significant implications for church
pastoral practice and discipline.
Read full
review...
|
| Robert A. J. Gagnon, Autumn 2009 |
|
Evangelicals have been softening their stance on divorce-and-remarriage for decades
but a recent, well-researched book by evangelical scholar David Instone-Brewer, Divorce
and Remarriage in the Bible, may be speeding up the process. Instone-Brewer argues
that Jesus did not oppose all divorce but only the “any matter” or no-fault divorce
promulgated for men by the Hillelite (not Shammaite) branch of the Pharisees. Jesus and
Paul assumed the universally accepted grounds for divorce in early Judaism reflected in
the marriage contracts of the day: not only adultery but also failure to comply with the
three marital obligations specified in Exod 21:10-1l (food, clothing, and conjugal rights).The latter three were grouped in rabbinic sources as material neglect (withholding food
and clothing) and emotional neglect (withholding sexual relations, perhaps widened
already in the first-century to acts of cruelty and public humiliation). According to
Instone-Brewer, Jesus and Paul held that both a person who divorces on valid grounds
and a person who is divorced on invalid grounds are free to remarry.
In my opinion, Instone-Brewer has made the best scriptural case, not only to date but
also for the foreseeable future, for broadening the grounds for divorce and remarriage-
after-divorce beyond the grounds of adultery, extreme physical abuse, and desertion that
are normally accepted in evangelical churches. Many evangelicals have rushed to accept
this interpretation of New Testament divorce texts—no doubt, partly on humane grounds,
partly out of self-interest, and partly as a way of accommodating to the high divorce rate
among evangelicals. What is at stake here? The practical implications of Instone-Brewer?s argument co
be far-reaching. The broad classification of “material or emotional neglect” could be misused to permit divorce for almost anything.
Read full
review...
Read response...
|
