The Divorce Myth

Rating:
Summary: The worst one out there. Filled with poor thinking.
Review: a comment from another:
'modernists promoting divorce & remarriage.'.

This statement is half the problem. People simply cannot see past their own traditions to see grace and forgiveness.

Modernists are not promoting divorce and remarriage. They are attempting to heal the wounded using Gods grace.

This book has real scholarship problems. First it ignores lanquage scholars who clearly state Jesus's statement is a passive sentence.

'He who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her' is what he said. The sentence is passive. The object of the sentence is the former spouse, the wife. Not the next marriage.

In Jesus day, lke now, adultery had meaning other than a sexual act. It was idolatry, defilement, AND covenant breaking. This is what Jesus was referring to in his statement. Adultery AGAINST a wife. Men didn't feel they were sinning by getting divorced. Jesus said they were sinning by breaking covenant with their wives. Simple really.

The problem and contradictions began when the catholic church in the 1500's started reading this a sexual adultery. It is impossible to commit adultery sexually with a spouse. The bible makes it clear all sins are forgiven if you ask. Repentence is a change of heart. If a man destroys marriages, repentence is to stop destroying marriages and be faithful to his vows.

Remove the sexual aspect based on false assumption and the contradictions fade away. Jesus is consistent with Duet and the teaching of Paul.

Whats odd about the poor reasoning of the author is that he actually denies the words of Jesus and seems happy to do it.

Jesus says 'He who divorces' the author says can't divorce.

Jesus says 'and marries another' the author says can't marry another.

Timothy makes it clear, you deny marriage and your practicing a doctrine of devils.

Jesus was talking about the act of divorcing your wife as being adultery not the next marriage. Reason, logic, history, and the words of Jesus make this clear if one is not guided by a faulty tradition based on an untenable premise.

I feel genuine sorrow for those who have had a life tragedy occur and have the church pile on. thankfully most churches realize Gods grace and are not legalist and pharisee like. But based on this book and a few of the commentators, the boot of the pharisee is still with us.

Even more terrible is a few pharisee types, fortunately very few, actually promote divorce. Something universally seen as a bad event in our culture. They will tell people in good second or third marriages to get divorced. What a horrible, horrible miscarriage of grace. They actually encourage what God hates(divorce), practice a doctrine of demons by preventing marriage, and want others to commit adultery(covenant breaking) all while denying the words of Jesus.
It is truly evil and I hope those who have suffered this indignity will find a grace filled church of believers who accept the real meaning of Gods grace.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting perspective....but not without clear problems
Review: J. Carl Laney has written an important work here in this oft-sited book. In fact, the reason I decided to read this book at all was because it was quoted so many times in book, articles, etc. that I've read on this topic. Laney certainly makes some good arguments, but I also see some serious problems.

Laney starts out with a theology of marriage which is in general correct. However, he takes the leap when he claims that in regards to Genesis 2:24, "...the married couple becomes one in a mystical, spiritual unity" (p. 21). This he draws from the Hebrew root DBQ (transliterated Dabaq, translated something like 'cleaves' (KJV, etc.,) or 'clings' (JPS Tanakh)) in Genesis 2:24 which means "fig. of loyalty, affection etc., with idea of physical proximity retained..." (Brown, Driver, Briggs; Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament). The word has several variations to it's meaning, but in general, it's a close bond. However, nowhere in lexical evidence does the word equate with anything that implies a complete permanence. One variation of the word even means 'soldering' (BDB), but something that is soldered can most certainly be unsoldered. Jesus recognized this fact when he commanded that, "What God has joined, no one ought separate." To that, one must realize, "No moral teaching prohibits impossible actions" (Clark and Rakestraw, "Readings In Christian Ethics; 1996, p. 227). Based on his interpretation of this word (DBQ), Laney believes in the indissoluble union of a marriage. This then becomes the point of reference in regards to divorce for all of Laney's book.

When Laney starts talking about divorce, one of the first texts that he discusses is the ever-imporant-in-the-divorce-debate passage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 about the Mosaic concession for a divorced woman to remarry. While he correctly states that this was "designed to protect the rejected wife and give her certain safeguard" (p.30), and gives three reasons, it forces him (although he doesn't admit it) to conclude that God gave divine approval for a certain sin: adultery through remarriage. Later he tried to cover up for this difficulty by claiming that this is a part of the 'progress of revelation' (p.109ff), and that it wasn't until the NT that God suddenly revealed that all remarriage is sinful. This is about as nonsensical as saying, "God used to expressly allow for men to lust after women, but when the NT finally came round, we learned different." If the marriage union is now indissoluble, it must have always been indissoluble. Furthermore, in Deut. 24:4, the first husband is recognized as the 'former' (KJV, NKJV, NAS, RSV, ASV, et. al.) husband, and if indeed they were still actually married, the woman OUGHT to go back to him, and not be denied that opportunity. This is not the case.

Approaching the famous 'exception' clause, Laney believes (and gives fairly decent support for) the idea that 'porneia' is talking about "[m]arriage within the prohibited relationships of Leviticus 18" (p.71), i.e., incestuous marriage. The problem with this? Both of the major schools at the time of Christ in this debate, the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel, who were most likely present when Jesus was asked the question about the debate, interpret porneia to mean adultery. Laney gives five flashy reasons why be believes that porneia cannot mean 'adultery,' but he fails to mention that this was the interpretation of the rabbinical schools at this time, and all the people aware of the debate. Therefore to reach Laney's conclusions, one must decide that Jesus was speaking a different language then the people, which is clearly ludicrous, especially since Laney believes in 'the doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture' that the bible is clearly written (p. 51). Wouldn't then Jesus himself at the time of the question speak in the language of the people? Or were they supposed to wait until the NT was written to finally see the clear picture?

In general, I believe that although I disagree with what much of what Laney says, that he does maintain a high level of compassion for those affected, especially near the end of the book. He believes that if people have remarried in ignorance of these biblical commands, that they should stay together but repent of the sin. He also believes that as soon as this repentance takes place, "the couple should be restored to full fellowship with the members of the church" (p. 125). However, when it comes to the role of elder/deacon, Laney again, I believe, goes off track. He starts out by pointing out that Leviticus states that the priests were not allowed to marry a divorced woman, which indeed it does (Lev. 21:7,14). He then wants to transfer this over to the New Testament in regards to qualifications to elders and deacons. The problem with this is that Laney is lifting one qualification out of a group of Levitical qualifications, which include not being blind or lame (vs. 18), not having a broken foot or hand (vs. 19) Regardless, Laney equates this Levitical qualification with the elder/deacon qualifications. His evaluation of the 'one woman man' of I Timothy 3:2, et. al., has some good points to it, but again, I believe that at points Laney goes overboard. Space prevents a discussion of this here - read it for yourself and decide.

I would recommend reading Samuel Chapman's review of this book in tandem with mine, as he hits on other important points that I haven't touched in this review.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting perspective....but not without clear problems
Review: J. Carl Laney has written an important work here in this oft-sited book. In fact, the reason I decided to read this book at all was because it was quoted so many times in book, articles, etc. that I've read on this topic. Laney certainly makes some good arguments, but I also see some serious problems.

Laney starts out with a theology of marriage which is in general correct. However, he takes the leap when he claims that in regards to Genesis 2:24, "...the married couple becomes one in a mystical, spiritual unity" (p. 21). This he draws from the Hebrew root DBQ (transliterated Dabaq, translated something like 'cleaves' (KJV, etc.,) or 'clings' (JPS Tanakh)) in Genesis 2:24 which means "fig. of loyalty, affection etc., with idea of physical proximity retained..." (Brown, Driver, Briggs; Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament). The word has several variations to it's meaning, but in general, it's a close bond. However, nowhere in lexical evidence does the word equate with anything that implies a complete permanence. One variation of the word even means 'soldering' (BDB), but something that is soldered can most certainly be unsoldered. Jesus recognized this fact when he commanded that, "What God has joined, no one ought separate." To that, one must realize, "No moral teaching prohibits impossible actions" (Clark and Rakestraw, "Readings In Christian Ethics; 1996, p. 227). Based on his interpretation of this word (DBQ), Laney believes in the indissoluble union of a marriage. This then becomes the point of reference in regards to divorce for all of Laney's book.

When Laney starts talking about divorce, one of the first texts that he discusses is the ever-imporant-in-the-divorce-debate passage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 about the Mosaic concession for a divorced woman to remarry. While he correctly states that this was "designed to protect the rejected wife and give her certain safeguard" (p.30), and gives three reasons, it forces him (although he doesn't admit it) to conclude that God gave divine approval for a certain sin: adultery through remarriage. Later he tried to cover up for this difficulty by claiming that this is a part of the 'progress of revelation' (p.109ff), and that it wasn't until the NT that God suddenly revealed that all remarriage is sinful. This is about as nonsensical as saying, "God used to expressly allow for men to lust after women, but when the NT finally came round, we learned different." If the marriage union is now indissoluble, it must have always been indissoluble. Furthermore, in Deut. 24:4, the first husband is recognized as the 'former' (KJV, NKJV, NAS, RSV, ASV, et. al.) husband, and if indeed they were still actually married, the woman OUGHT to go back to him, and not be denied that opportunity. This is not the case.

Approaching the famous 'exception' clause, Laney believes (and gives fairly decent support for) the idea that 'porneia' is talking about "[m]arriage within the prohibited relationships of Leviticus 18" (p.71), i.e., incestuous marriage. The problem with this? Both of the major schools at the time of Christ in this debate, the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel, who were most likely present when Jesus was asked the question about the debate, interpret porneia to mean adultery. Laney gives five flashy reasons why be believes that porneia cannot mean 'adultery,' but he fails to mention that this was the interpretation of the rabbinical schools at this time, and all the people aware of the debate. Therefore to reach Laney's conclusions, one must decide that Jesus was speaking a different language then the people, which is clearly ludicrous, especially since Laney believes in 'the doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture' that the bible is clearly written (p. 51). Wouldn't then Jesus himself at the time of the question speak in the language of the people? Or were they supposed to wait until the NT was written to finally see the clear picture?

In general, I believe that although I disagree with what much of what Laney says, that he does maintain a high level of compassion for those affected, especially near the end of the book. He believes that if people have remarried in ignorance of these biblical commands, that they should stay together but repent of the sin. He also believes that as soon as this repentance takes place, "the couple should be restored to full fellowship with the members of the church" (p. 125). However, when it comes to the role of elder/deacon, Laney again, I believe, goes off track. He starts out by pointing out that Leviticus states that the priests were not allowed to marry a divorced woman, which indeed it does (Lev. 21:7,14). He then wants to transfer this over to the New Testament in regards to qualifications to elders and deacons. The problem with this is that Laney is lifting one qualification out of a group of Levitical qualifications, which include not being blind or lame (vs. 18), not having a broken foot or hand (vs. 19) Regardless, Laney equates this Levitical qualification with the elder/deacon qualifications. His evaluation of the 'one woman man' of I Timothy 3:2, et. al., has some good points to it, but again, I believe that at points Laney goes overboard. Space prevents a discussion of this here - read it for yourself and decide.

I would recommend reading Samuel Chapman's review of this book in tandem with mine, as he hits on other important points that I haven't touched in this review.

Rating:
Summary: It makes you think about God's standards for marriage.
Review: Laney gives a thoughtful and understanding treatment of how pastors are tempted to be "pleasers" when asked to perform marriages for divorced people, but does not apologize for upholding God's original intent of one spouse until death do you part. He gives a critique of the pro's and con's on various interpretations of St. Matthew's "except for fornication" clause. His discussion of 1 Cor. 7:10f. cuts through a lot of rationalizations people use to justify another marriage in almost any circumstance. He has a helpful section for situations facing any pastor or counselor related to this area. In the end his position is reconcile with your mate, or remain single. He makes his arguments on the basis of a careful examination of the relevant Biblical texts. Every pastor ought read this book in arriving at a heartfelt conviction on what the divorce and remarriage passages mean for today. It is a courageous book in an all too permissive age.

Rating:
Summary: Laney removes not the ancient landmark
Review: Laney's book "The Divorce Myth" is a must-read for the Pastor and Missionary and makes for an excellent text book for Bible College-level family classes.
As always, there are many 'modern day' prophets who have attempted to add 'new light' upon the area of divorce and remarriage amongst the redeemed. But Laney aptly produces an expansive & exhaustive study on the topic of the scriptural marriage covenant and reveals the error of the modernists promoting divorce & remarriage. His conclusions are sound, well reasoned, simply to understand & apply and proves once again the necessity of 'rightly dividing the word of truth'.
The kingdom of Christ deserves such straight forward and uncompromising approach to scripture.

Rating:
Summary: Laney removes not the ancient landmark
Review: Laney's book "The Divorce Myth" is a must-read for the Pastor and Missionary and makes for an excellent text book for Bible College-level family classes.
As always, there are many 'modern day' prophets who have attempted to add 'new light' upon the area of divorce and remarriage amongst the redeemed. But Laney aptly produces an expansive & exhaustive study on the topic of the scriptural marriage covenant and reveals the error of the modernists promoting divorce & remarriage. His conclusions are sound, well reasoned, simply to understand & apply and proves once again the necessity of 'rightly dividing the word of truth'.
The kingdom of Christ deserves such straight forward and uncompromising approach to scripture.

Rating:
Summary: Wishful thinking done well - if only it were so simple.
Review: Mr Laney adopts a "no divorce" position. He uses a common argument to suggest that adultery is not a ground for divorce, namely that in the Law of Moses an adulterer would have been executed, rather than divorced, although this mistakes the different consequences of complaining to a court versus resolving the issue yourself. This leaves him in a difficult position with regard to what the Bible is talking about when it refers to divorce - he needs to find a limited form of sexual immorality that he can claim the texts refer to.

Laney's book is at its most puzzling when it tries to account for divorces commanded by God in Ezra 9 and 10. The "no divorce" position finds these instances uncomfortable, yet Laney accepts that these divorces were necessary to preserve Israel's national identity and purity and that they were a little unhappiness to stop a great unhappiness!. While it is clear that Laney is reluctant to allow this exception to transfer to the church, it is not clear why - and it is similarly unclear why "no divorce" is in any circumstances compatible with divorce - is it not open to people to invent their own high priorities today? Laney provides no convincing guidance.

Laney very usefully and conclusively proves that Matthew 19 and Mark 10 are records of the same event, by comparing geography, audience, questions, quotations, replies, rebukes and subsequent incidences in the two chapters. He does this to then argue that any differences in what is recorded is to meet the needs of the various first century audiences of the various gospels, and from this to infer that the record with the least detail is obviously sufficient to encapsulate the teaching for the whole church! It is not immediately clear why we need more than one gospel account for anything if Laney's approach is valid, as obviously the lowest common denominator is enough. This of course shows Laney's assumptions. Each Gospel is not intended to replace all scripture, and the canon can only be complete with them all. Laney seems to neglect that the intended audience of the Gospels was not just the first people who read them. we are part of the intended audience too. It also neglects the fact that the Old Testament scriptures were already in place and provide the background against which each Gospel can be understood.

It is only here that it becomes obvious where Laney is going. He is looking to establish the smallest of Christ's comments on divorce as giving all the Bible's teaching on it, and trying to limit Christ's exception clause to virtually no cases. It turns out that he can only do this by making it refer to incestuous marriages! And he persists in this view even when he has to admit that the same word elsewhere in the New Testament includes other forms of sexual immorality. To accept Laney's view of divorce you have to accept that the word Christ uses for "sexual immorality" has the limited meaning of incestuous marriage, even when it is clearly much wider elsewhere in the New Testament. Laney's whole view of divorce depends on you accepting this point, and it is clear that you don't have to - the Bible gives you much wider options, but Laney doesn't.

Rating:
Summary: Biblical True About Divorce
Review: The book is very well written, and it is based on what the Holy Bible say about divorce and remarriage. J. Carl Laney has not taken scriptures of content in any area. It will answer those questions that Christians would have on the subject of divorce and remarriage. This book should be in every pastor's and minister's library.

Rev. Khris W. Klock

Rating:
Summary: beware this scripture twister
Review: This is an EXTREMELY condemning word to those in abusive marriages. Basically, he teaches no divorce and no remarriage for any reason. He ended up here because he believes in the 'perpescuity of Scripture' which means that what the Bible says is clear to a reader. These divorce verses are anything but clear as we have lost the 1st century context. He does do a good job of identifying some of the puzzles, but solves them like a Gentile, not a Hebrew. (Hint: The writers of the NT (except for Luke) were Hebrews.) For what the Bible really teaches about marriage and divorce, see David Instone-Brewer "Divorce and Remarriage: The Social and Literary Context" which shows how 1st century Jews would understand the words of Jesus and how Jews and Gentiles would understand the words of Paul.

Rating:
Summary: beware this scripture twister
Review: This is an EXTREMELY condemning word to those in abusive marriages. Basically, he teaches no divorce and no remarriage for any reason. He ended up here because he believes in the 'perpescuity of Scripture' which means that what the Bible says is clear to a reader. These divorce verses are anything but clear as we have lost the 1st century context. He does do a good job of identifying some of the puzzles, but solves them like a Gentile, not a Hebrew. (Hint: The writers of the NT (except for Luke) were Hebrews.) For what the Bible really teaches about marriage and divorce, see David Instone-Brewer "Divorce and Remarriage: The Social and Literary Context" which shows how 1st century Jews would understand the words of Jesus and how Jews and Gentiles would understand the words of Paul.