Barbara Roberts, _Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery & Desertion_

Part A carries the title ‘Setting the scene,’ and after an introduction surveying the confusing variegation of positions on divorce and remarriage, addresses the topics ‘What is abuse?’ and ‘Biblical action steps.’ Along with chapter 3 this provides an investigation into the ‘Biblical legitimacy’ of divorce for marital abuse. Although this is the special focus of the book, Roberts suggests those interested in the Bible’s position on divorce and remarriage, such as friends, counsellors, pastors or theologians will also find help (p. 15). She, correctly in my opinion, notes that scripture is interpreted through the grid of our and society’s experience, experience that until the “last decades of the twentieth century” did not appreciate the dynamics of marital abuse. The corrective she proposes is to consider “how Jesus’ hearers would have understood his teachings” (p. 15). Plausible as this approach might appear, it is naïve and does not embrace the majority of her scriptural investigation which ranges through both OT and Pauline texts (e.g., p. 17). I will have more to say on this below.

Chapter 1, ‘What is abuse?’ offers the definition, “an abuser abuses power in a relationship at the expense of the victim…domestic abuse can include emotional, social, financial and other types of mistreatment and may not even involve physical violence” (p. 18). These various forms of abuse are then examined. While the documentation, both American and Australian, concerning physical abuse is copious and from excellent resources, there is little if any for the remaining categories. It is this disparity which may cause some to fear that Roberts is opening “the floodgates of excuses for divorce” (back cover), but she counters;

It is wrong to present the idea that we can cry “abuse” at any and every slight, but it is also wrong (sic) suggest that we have not been abused unless we have been beaten up…Fair-minded thinking will allow that many kinds of non-physical behavior, especially when persistent and repeated, can so undermine a person’s well-being that the result is abuse…Some of the behaviors might not be abuse if they are isolated incidents, just committed carelessly, as part of the occasional ups and downs of personal interaction. However, when these behaviors demonstrate a pattern of conduct designed to obtain and maintain ungodly control over another, they become serious (p. 20).

Within Chapter 2, ‘Biblical action steps’, I specifically encountered some problems. Roberts recognises the problem of applying regulative principles from one domain (ecclesiastical) to another (spousal; p. 32) but does not elucidate how to overcome this. Her examination of Scripture on such things as discipline, defence and separation may be legitimate, once an ethical strategy is established.¹ But given the nature of the work, recourse to the mere similarity of idea or parallel word/idea betrays a failure to inform the implied reader of such intricacies. I find her guilty of the very thing she accuses those who misuse Heb 13:4 to sanction any sexual activity (p. 22). That is the neglect of the specific contextual, sociological and rhetorical function of the texts. This concern is evident again in chapter 3 where in support of the idea that 1 Cor 7:15 could be rendered ‘if the unbeliever caused the separation’, Roberts invokes David’s leaving Saul as a response to Saul’s abuse. While English law correctly provided for ‘Constructive Desertion,’ parallel ideas or Puritan quotations (see p. 117-118) do not constitute argument. I believe she has a much stronger case in the distinction between ‘treacherous’ (without biblical grounds) and ‘disciplinary’ divorce with 1 Cor 7:15 appropriate to the latter (p. 39-40).

Further, Roberts’ (e.g., p. 41) understanding of what constitutes a word study is naïve at best. A word’s meaning is the net result of grammatical semantics, lexeme, and context,² not simply a dictionary (lexicon) entry, even if it is BDAG! But her focus on syneudokeo could yield the outcomes she argues for, yet this was not satisfactorily accomplished. If a thorough investigation of the biblical and Hellenistic use of this term, using Campbell’s paradigm, was undertaken I am confident a case can be made for believer initiated divorce for the kinds of abuse Roberts’ highlights. Roberts’ (p. 44) appraisal of 1 Cor 7:16 (and thus 14) is dismissive and is in need of much greater attention if she is to defend her position. Chapter 4, ‘May I remarry if I have suffered divorce?’ however, is handled well and demonstrates both exegetical skill and sage counsel.

At chapter 5 Roberts believes she has established that 1 Cor 7:15 permits divorce for abuse and moves to address, in the remainder of the book, those arguments/texts (‘giants’) which would appear to challenge this position. However, I am not convinced she has successfully proved the claim. In fact, it is Instone-Brewer,³ whom she quotes so frequently, who has convincingly provided the necessary argumentation. Given the case is made by Instone-Brewer I conclude her resolution of Rom 7:1-4, 1 Cor 7:39, Eph 5, Gen 2:24, 1 Tim 3:2, 12, Titus 1:6 (Chapter 5), Exod 21:7-11, Deut 21:10-14, 24:1-4 (Chapter 6), are adequate and in some cases, excellent. Although where Instone-Brewer addresses the identical issue the result is more rigorous.

Chapter 7 addresses the issue of the marriage contract and concludes it is not unilateral and unconditional. Instead it is violated by the abuses described earlier and thus can be biblically terminated. This is followed by what I consider one of the best chapters in the book dealing with the wounding phrase ‘God hates divorce’ (Mal 2:16). Exampling good exegesis and surveying excellent scholarship (p. 127-131: Appendix 7) I concur that a better translation, correctly rendering the third person ‘he’ as the husband, is the ESV, ‘For the man who hates and divorces, says the Lord, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts.’ She (p. 75) correctly advises;

God did not say “I hate divorce”, nor did he condemn all divorce. We should therefore stop using the slogan “God hates divorce”. If we still need a slogan, it would be better to say, “God hates treacherous divorce, but he does not hate disciplinary divorce.”

Finally Roberts investigates the words of Jesus beginning with Mt 19. A quick survey of the footnotes reveals her indebtedness again to Instone-Brewer, and since I have already revealed my avid support for his rigorous scholarship, I find her conclusion that Jesus is not addressing divorce per se, but answering the implicit question put to him as to which of the Pharisaic schools (Hillel or Shammai) he advocated, as correct. Jesus agreed with both schools. That is with Exodus 21 which allowed divorce for abuse and neglect and, with correction (p. 86 and 132-135: Appendix 8), Jesus agreed with the Shammaite interpretation of Deut 24 which restricted erwat daba_r to _porneia, that is, sexual infidelity. Noting that Mt 19:9 is a ‘pronouncement story,’ she again correctly translates ‘is guilty of adultery,’ rather than emphasising the continuous ‘is committing adultery,’ thus avoiding needless speculation as to whether the new marriage should be terminated to end the adultery (p. 87-88). Chapters 10 and 11 display exemplary redactional exegetical sensitivity to the synoptic parallels of Mk and Lk with cognisance of the situation specificity of each and their rhetorical intent.

A concluding chapter (12) summarises all the material presented with a final plea to teachers and speakers to change the damaging words ‘God hates divorce;’

It takes only eleven words to say “God hates treacherous divorce, but he does not hate disciplinary divorce.” (p. 113)

While I have problems with some parts of Roberts’ book, I am in agreement with the larger whole and the sage counsel this monograph presents. However, the title could be misleading. The majority of the book has to do with divorce and remarriage in general or porneia in particular, not, as the sub title reads, ‘for Abuse, Adultery & Desertion.’ Since she herself is a ‘victim’ of divorce by abuse, fellow victims would find in her an identifiable resonance. Rather than re-present the excellent works she cites, such as Adams (1980), Duty (1983), Murray (1961) and particularly Instone-Brewer (2002, 2003), I believe the Christian community would have benefited from a greater focus on the abuse issue. Having said this, many who would never read such scholars (as listed previously), will read Roberts and gain enormously from her faithful ‘popularising’ of their scholarship.

Roberts is obviously working with a (soft/complementarian) patriarchal model of marriage e.g., ‘his headship’ (p. 23, 25, 57, 160 n. 138) where she cites the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood with approval, and especially “God created woman with a submissive and responsive nature (Gen 2:18)…man’s nature is to lead rather than to respond” Roberts 2008, 99). I am persuaded her work will be enhanced by a “complementarity without hierarchy” model.⁴

---