E-mail:			A number of the available books on divorce from a Christian perspective are listed here with brief reviews and some idea of their viewpoint. The writers do not agree with each other on all points, and none of them are likely to agree with or address all the points made on this site. Their presence on this page is to allow you to consult diverse sources so that you can come to your own view of what the Bible teaches, and so christiandivorce.info does not endorse these books, or vice versa.   All external links on this page open in new windows at amazon.com

• "Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible" by Jay E. Adams Buy Now!

Jay Adams supports the view that the Old Testament mentions divorce but does not allow it. To him Deuteronomy 24 talks about what is possible in society, rather than what is allowed by God. In this view, divorce was legally permissable but sinful. Despite this he believes that the Bible permits divorce and remarriage in certain circumstances - not every divorce is sinful - and he mixes the various biblical terms that cover the area in a way which misses some important distinctions. He supports the idea that Christ allowed divorce for sexual immorality and that Paul allowed it for desertion by an unbeliever. He also supports the concept that someone under church discipine is to be "treated like an unbeliever", and therefore an abandonment by them can result in dissolution of the marriage. This is a strange mixture of ideas, and is not needed if there is a proper understanding of how 1 Corinthians 7 relates to Exodus 21. - It puts an awful lot of power in the hands of the church without due cause - someone under church discipline is treated like an unbeliever - but they are not made into one.

Mr Adams says that anyone improperly divorced is actually divorced, but future marriages involve adultery because the person concerned has no right to be in an unmarried state, even though they are. He says that all persons properly divorced may remarry, but doesn't give a full answer for those improperly divorced. He is strong in his opposition of divorces going to secular courts, but leans too heavily on the involvement of the church, making their judgements authoritative without explaining what to do when a church is not inclined or competent to help. He is strong on showing that divorces are effective in ending marriage, and in showing that not all divorces are wrong, but regrettably doesn't show the full biblical list of wrongs that can end a marriage, and is overly harsh on polygamists.

Overall, obviously there are differences between the teaching of this book and the teaching of the person who has reviewed it, but the book is one of the better books on divorce, is quite well-written and is capable of teaching you a few things you didn't know before you picked it up.

• "Questions about Divorce & Remarriage" by Andrew Cornes

Mr Cornes book covers a very wide range of questions, not all of which are strictly doctrinal and limited to divorce. There are questions such as "What weight should I give to the opinions of my friends?" and "what about nullity?", concerns such as "what if I never really loved my partner?" and "How can I most support my children". But the general doctrinal position is that divorce is not allowed, except for unfaithfulness, and that remarriage is never allowed under any circumstances. Mr Cornes believes that you are both divorced and married at the same time. You can only remarry when your partner has died. The cosequences of a book style which seeks to answer questions are twofold -

1. The author can control the questions. So while he is content to allow someone forgiveness for a divorce undergone before they became a Christian, he views them as still married, and while he is content to advise this person to break off a relationship if they are "deeply involved" with someone else, he doesn't ask himself how God views their situation if they have actually remarried.

2. He is not doing systematic exegesis of all the relevant scriptural passages, and so can pick and choose what he quotes. For example when he wants to talk against remarriage he can pull some of Paul's comments to Christians who are married and emphasise that a woman who has left her husband should not get married but should be reconciled to her husband, while not quoting a few verses later where Paul says "have you been loosed from a wife. Do not seek a wife, but if you do marry you have not sinned."

Some of the questions and answers may be helpful - the questions certainly show some of the issues that need to be addressed and helpfully go beyond the narrow confines of when divorce and remarriage is allowed, to consider some of the surrounding issues and consequences, but the book suffers from a doctrinal position which has many weaknesses.

• "Tony Evans Speaks Out On Divorce and Remarriage" by Tony Evans Buy Now!

In addition to accepting one of the popular evangelical models on divorce (where adultery gives grounds for divorce, as does desertion by a non-believer) Mr Evans has a fair few novel ideas:-

1. God is concerned only with "legal" marriages - those recognised by the state. But as a marriage in one country may or may not be recognised in another, this does not address the issue of which country's law is to be followed.
2. Decisions on divorce are effectively left to the local church. The church should seek to resolve marriage conflicts through the Matt 18 process of conflict resolution. If the decision of the church is not accepted then they get to expel the person who disagrees. Mr Evans then applies Lev. 18v29 to suggest that being cut off from your people brings your marriage to an end. This raises more questions than it answers. Can a group of disgruntled divorcees set up a church with an attitude to divorce that they find favourable, and how does their authority differ from others whose church takes a different line?
3. Mr Evans also believes that an illegitimate divorce leaves you still married, but it is by no means clear which church's decision should be treated as legitimate if they disagree, and what the effect is on future marriages.
4. He suggests all capital crimes are grounds for divorce, as the person responsible should have been killed and that would have freed their partner. However this ignores the example of David and Bathsheba. David had committed adultery, a capital offence - but his marriages, kingdom and everything stayed in place - God did not suddenly pretend that David was really dead when he was actually alive.
5. He suggests the church can determine where there has been "spiritual death" and that this constitutes grounds for divorce.
6. He suggests that a conversion gives Christians a new life and so previous marriages and divorces do not restrict them from future marriage.

Overall Mr Evans uses an over-ambitious method of interpretation which treats modern disputes between spouses as part of early church discipline and which relies on sticking pieces of the Bible which refer to divorce together with parts which have nothing to do with it. It is not clear why the Bible has any rules about divorce if the church has such absolute sway, and it is unclear which church is right when they conflict. Mr Evans approach takes the final decision about many divorces away from the Bible and gives it to the church. You will not find absolute answers in the Bible, as the church has the final say, which is of course the opposite of biblical doctrine on where we get our authority. It is bad theology, as well as being completely impractical, but it is 64 tiny pages, and should not take you long to read, although it may take you longer to work out why the Moody Press found themselves capable of printing it.

• "...And Marries Another - Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament" by Craig S. Keener Buy Now!

This book has a very heavy cultural emphasis and its writer has a disdain for the use of "proof texts". It is so reliant on culture that at times it appears to make the scriptures into a subjective text. It even goes as far as referring to Christ's teaching in the Gospels as "hyperbole". However the conclusions are that divorces are to be made official, that the innocent victims should be treated as other singles and that the guilty should be encouraged to repent and then to make reconciliation if possible, so it captures some of the emphasis of Christian teaching, if not all its detail. The book has a tremendous amount of notes, as any cultural/historical work must, but there is a danger of pushing people towards the line that they can only understand the bible on divorce if they understand all the history and extra-biblical sources - which is a way of restricting the truth to academics and priests.

• "The Divorce Myth - A Biblical Examination of Divorce and Remarriage" by J. Carl Laney Buy It Now!

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 we are also the intended audience of the Gospels, not just the first people who read them, and 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.

• "Divorce and Remarriage - Four Christian Views" Buy It Now!

edited by H. Wayne House - contributions from J. Carl Laney, William Heth, Thomas Edgar and Larry Richards

In some ways this book is incredibly amusing. The four writers hold radically different views (no divorce and no remarriage; divorce but no remarriage; divorce and remarriage for adultery and desertion; and divorce and remarriage under a variety of circumstances). They not only give one presentation of their own views but get to comment on the presentations of the others. You may come away from the book slightly light-headed, but the format ensures that no-one gets away without criticism. The funny bit is that, although the writers are all fundamentally opposed to each other's interpretations, they all go out of the way to be really nice about each other first. It's like "Mr X is an incredibly nice man and a good Christian - I am now going to show you how he allows people to commit adultery and leads millions astray."

There are a couple of dangers of having such a book. One is that you may be trying to decide which of the four writers is right. Don't forget the option that they may all have valid points to make, but that the truth might be a fifth explanation that none of them would entirely agree with. The second is that all the arguments, some of them finely constructed, may discourage you from being able to find the truth. Remember, just because Christians make it complicated, doesn't mean that it isn't actually simple and understandable.

• "Divorce" by John Murray Buy It Now!

Mr Murray's text is often quoted by others, which may serve as a recommendation in itself, but it is particularly intense and so other writers often take the opportunity of explaining it to mere mortals such as you and I. He takes the view that Deuteronomy 24 describes divorce rather than instituting it, and goes on to give the standard line that Jesus allowed divorce and remarriage for cases of sexual immorality. In other instances he regards the divorce as ineffective, and so remarriage is adultery. On the one hand he says that Jesus did not abrogate the Old Testament law, but on the other hand he says that Christ changed the penalty for adultery from death to divorce. This latter position is not consistent with the former and the idea that the law skirts around divorce without properly legislating on it is a strange view to entertain..