Why Dr. David Instone-Brewer believes Jesus condemned invalid divorce—not every remarriage
Dr. David Instone-Brewer believes that remarriage after a valid divorce is permitted. Note:
- DRB = book Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible
- DRC = book Divorce and Remarriage in the Church, also See selected passages online.
The Four Biblical Grounds for Divorce
Instone-Brewer states his position very directly: “Four Grounds Are Affirmed in the NT.” He names them as:
-
Adultery
-
Desertion by an unbeliever
-
Emotional neglect (including emotional abuse)
-
Material neglect (including physical abuse)
He roots the last two in the Old Testament, Exodus 21:10–11, where a spouse is owed food, clothing, and love, and if these are withheld, the spouse is to be set free. DRB p. 275
He argues that Paul alludes to those same obligations in 1 Corinthians 7, treating them as real marital duties, not optional acts of kindness, DRB, p. 193. In DRB, he says the rabbis divided these duties into emotional obligations and material obligations, and that Paul addresses both. DRB p. 194
He later summarizes Paul’s teaching this way: when a spouse is deserted against his or her will, that desertion counts as neglect of marriage obligations; and when reconciliation fails, the abandoned believer is free to accept that the marriage has ended and is, by implication, free to remarry. DRB p. 212
What About Desertion By a Believer?
Instone-Brewer argues that Paul clearly says believers must not desert their spouses, and that if a nonbeliever deserts a believer and will not return, the deserted believer is “no longer bound.” He then extends that logic to a professing believer who deserts and refuses to obey Christ’s command to reconcile. In that case, the church would eventually have to treat that person as outside the faith. So his conclusion is that 1 Corinthians 7:15 applies to any desertion that cannot be reversed, whether by an unbeliever or by someone who claims to be a believer but persists in desertion. (pp. 281-282, DRB)
His Claim
Instone-Brewer says divorce should be avoided, but it is sometimes necessary.
He says divorce should be avoided whenever possible. But he also says the New Testament does not teach that every divorced person is bound for life no matter what happened. In his pastoral conclusion, he writes that divorce is allowed only when marriage vows have been broken, that the injured party must make that decision, and that “if divorce does happen, remarriage is permitted.” DRB pp. 313–314.
That is why his view matters pastorally: he believes the innocent spouse is not automatically chained for life to a covenant already destroyed by serious betrayal or neglect.
He believes the injured spouse is generally called to forgive, especially where there is repentance (DRC, pp. 63–65). But in the end, only the wronged spouse can decide when “enough is enough” (DRC, p. 18; pp. 42–43). In pastoral practice, Instone-Brewer says that decision belongs to the partner who has been betrayed, neglected, or abused (DRB, p. 311).
But What About Jesus’ Hard Words?
This is where Instone-Brewer’s argument becomes especially important.
He says Jesus was answering a specific first-century Jewish debate, not the broad modern question, “Is every divorce always sinful?”
In DRC, he explains that the Pharisees were asking about “Any Cause” divorce — a loose reading of Deuteronomy 24:1 that allowed a man to dismiss his wife for almost any reason. Jesus rejected that view. Instone-Brewer says Jesus’ answer matched the stricter Shammaite position: divorce for sexual immorality was valid, but divorce for “Any Cause” was not. DRC pp. 97–98 (97-98 is validated)
So when Jesus says remarriage after divorce can be adultery, Instone-Brewer says he is speaking about remarriage after an invalid divorce — not every remarriage without exception.
Common Objection #1: “Then Jesus allowed divorce only for adultery.”
Instone-Brewer says no.
In DRC, he argues that when Shammai limited divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1 to sexual immorality, that did not mean Shammai rejected every other biblical ground for divorce. He says we have records of debates between Hillelites and Shammaites about neglect — food, clothing, and conjugal love — which shows both schools accepted neglect as a valid category. DRC pp. 97–98.
That is one of his biggest points: Jesus rejected invalid divorce under Deuteronomy 24; he did not erase the other grounds already present in Exodus 21.
“So if Jesus believed that neglect and abuse were valid grounds for divorce, why didn’t he say something about them?
The most likely answer is that he did not need to say anything—or he did say something, but the Gospel writers did not think it was necessary to record it—because the principle was so universally accepted that there was no dispute about it. There are several other universally accepted truths that Jesus did not teach anywhere, such as the doctrine that there is only one God. The oneness of God was agreed on by everyone, so there was no need for Jesus to teach it. He was also silent about rape and manslaughter, but this does not mean that he was unconcerned about victims of these crimes.” (DRC, p. 96-97)
Common Objection #2: “But the New Testament never plainly says, ‘A divorced person may remarry.’”
Instone-Brewer admits the New Testament does not say that in one neat sentence.
But he says that is because first-century Jews did not need it spelled out. In DRB, he argues that remarriage after a valid divorce was already the universal assumption of the culture, so Jesus’ silence on that point is best read as agreement, not prohibition. DRB p. 286.
He makes the same point when discussing Paul: first-century readers would have understood “not bound” as freedom that included remarriage. DRB p. 212.
Why This Matters
Instone-Brewer is not soft on sin.
He is hard on frivolous divorce, hard on covenant breaking, and hard on any reading of Jesus that turns marriage into something casual. But he is equally unwilling to tell the innocent spouse that Scripture requires lifelong bondage to adultery, abandonment, or crushing neglect.
His bottom line is simple: divorce is never good, but some divorces are valid — and remarriage after a valid divorce is permitted.
DRB pp. 274, 285, 314; DRC pp. 97–98.
About
Dr. David Instone-Brewer was a senior researcher at Tyndale House, Cambridge, England, for 25 years before he retired. He’s not only an expert in ancient biblical languages, he has also collected and studied all available Greek, Latin, and Aramaic marriage and divorce papyri, hundreds of documents, spanning roughly the fourth century BCE to the fourth century CE.
That means his conclusions are grounded in the best of both worlds: not only in extensive understanding of the Bible, but in real life examples of how the biblical laws were carried out at the time. He built his understanding of marriage and divorce in biblical times from real documents, not modern assumptions about what marriage and divorce “must have meant” 2,000 years ago.
That is why his argument deserves attention.
For Further Reading
“Let No Man Separate” Doesn’t Mean No Divorce for Any Reason — Matthew 19:6
1 Corinthians 7:10 Explained: What Paul Meant About Separation and Remarriage
• Video explanation of the Four Causes for Divorce in the Bible
:
:
Buy PDF