(A) MARRIAGE - Free Church of Scotland

(A) MARRIAGE
(Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage and “Same sex marriage”)
1.1 Introduction Frank Sinatra famously sang in 1955:
Love and marriage, love and marriage
Go together like a horse and carriage
This I tell you brother
You can’t have one without the other i
The sentiment now seems as dated as the horse and carriage! The reality is better represented by Mae West’s famous
quip: “Marriage is an institution. But who wants to live in an institution?” Or to quote that great philosopher, Homer
Simpson: “Marriage is like a coffin and each kid is another nail.”
1.2 But behind the humour there is a stark reality. There is a crisis concerning marriage today, although sometimes
this is exaggerated in the media. The UK statistics show that just over 2% of the married population are getting divorced
each year. And the number of people getting married is stable or even (in Scotland) on the increase.
1.3 However, other statistics show a different picture. There is a huge increase in single occupancy housing and a
decrease in housing occupied by married couples with children. In addition there is the high teenage pregnancy rate,
single parent families and couples just “living together”.
1.4 The Office for National Statistics said that in 2006, children in the UK were nearly three times more likely to
live in one-parent households than they were in 1972: “However, nearly 1 in 4 dependent children lived in lone parent
families in 2006. This is substantially different from 1972, when the equivalent proportion was 1 in 14.” ii
1.5 In the past 50 years, there has been a sea change in the attitude of many people to marriage. The traditional ideal
of a man and a woman “living happily ever after” has been replaced with various types of relationship. Nothing
illustrates this more than the present campaign for “same sex marriage”. In a recent article in The Scotsman Hugh
McLachlan (Professor of Applied Philosophy in the Glasgow School for Business and Society at Glasgow Caledonian
University) commented: iii
“In strict intellectual terms, there is no good reason for legally prohibiting women from marrying women, or men from
marrying men.
Should people in Scotland be legally permitted to marry someone of their own sex? Should members of the clergy - on
religious premises and under the auspices of religion - be among those who are authorised to conduct such ceremonies?
To most of us, the issues raised by these questions are so slight and innocuous that the passionate reactions they have
created are baffling.”
1.6 And following the 2011 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the official News Release said: iv
“Commissioners voted … to adopt deliverance 7B, which means a move towards the acceptance for training, induction
and ordination of those in same-sex relationships for the ministry. The Assembly also voted to allow ministers and
deacons in same-sex relationships ordained before 2009 to be inducted into pastoral charges …
A theological commission will be set up to bring recommendations to the 2013 General Assembly, as well as considering
whether ministers should have freedom of conscience to bless civil partnerships and possible liturgy for such occasions.”
1.7 If anyone had suggested, when homosexual acts in private between consenting adults were decriminalised in
1967 (1980 in Scotland), that we would end up here, they would have been laughed out of court. And yet here is where
we have ended up. How have we arrived where we have?
1.8 G. K. Chesterton famously said that when men cease to believe in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they
believe in anything. Of the God-substitutes that people have adopted, two of the most powerful are the idols of “rights”
and sex. And when both are combined in any cause, they form a strong barrier to any other point of view.
1.9 Of course, like any idol, these gods are originally good creations or gifts of Almighty God. The whole concept
of human rights (like modern science) originated nowhere but in the Christian West. There is a reason for that. It was the
concept of God as lawgiver over above kings and nobles, derived from the Bible, that gave rise to the rule of law. Think
of Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex (1644), subtitled “The Law and the Prince”, but literally “The Law is King”

(Rutherford’s book had a huge influence on the development of constitutional democracy both in the UK and the USA.)
And with the rule of law there came responsibilities, but also rights. If I have a responsibility not to kill you, you have a
right to life.
1.10 Similarly with sex: the contemporary motto may be Sex Rex (Sex is King), but sex is originally the good gift
and creation of God. Contrary to popular belief, sex was not invented in the 1960s (if so, it’s strange how the human race
managed to survive until then). Sexual instinct and attraction is part of our humanity as created in the image of God.
From the very start the human race was commanded to be fruitful and increase, and “a man will leave his father and
mother, be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Genesis 1:28, 2:24).
1.11 So the Christian’s difficulty with the present situation is not what it is often portrayed as being – prudishness
concerning sex and suspicion of human rights – but rather concern that what is intrinsically good has been twisted out of
its proper place to become a god.
1.12 If you doubt this, you only have to consider the hysterical reactions to anyone daring to question the positions
taken by the liberal, politically-correct establishment in media and government – like the reaction to the stance of Gordon
Wilson in the statement of Solas concerning the Same Sex Marriage proposals of the Scottish Government, and other
similar stances. For instance a board member of Citizens Advice said Mr Wilson had been “vocal and indeed vitriolic in
voicing his opinion over gay marriages in Scotland”. And SNP Euro MP Alyn Smith is reported as saying “What is in the
small, mean, angry heads of bigots is a matter for them.” v
1.13 Such mature respectful debate is on a level with the reactions of the citizens of Ephesus to the preaching of the
gospel by Paul – they shouted for about two hours “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” Such was their devotion to their
goddess (and the silver trade associated with it) that they could not rationally discuss the question.
1.14 This is why it is so difficult to have a rational discussion about sex or sexuality where you may disagree with the
received establishment view – they feel you are attacking their gods – sexual identity and personal autonomy. And for
most postmodernists, religion is not a matter for rational discussion – it is a private matter, and you have no right to
criticise their private views.
2.1.1 Marriage However, it is clear that there is a wider crisis concerning marriage in our society. We do not
need to quote statistics to prove that. Not that long ago we thought that the breakdown of marriage was restricted to
America, or to cities, or to the non-Christian world. Our illusions have been completely shattered. There is not one
community throughout our land, including the Highlands and Islands, where marriage breakdown is not a reality. There
is hardly a congregation of the Free Church where marriage breakdown is not a reality. We all know that we only need to
look at our own marriages and those in our own families to know the pressures that exist in this whole area.
2.1.2 The primary purpose of this report is to examine the Biblical teaching on marriage and divorce and to try to give
some biblical guidance and practical counsel as to how ministers in particular ought to approach the subjects of marriage
and divorce today. One of the harsh realities of all this is that normally a minister first becomes aware of a problem in
this area when it is far too late – when the relationship has broken down, often, it would appear, irretrievably. Or it will
come to the minister’s attention when a couple approach him for marriage and he discovers one of them has been married
before, and a lot of discussion has to take place at that point.
2.1.3 This tells us that we really must be far more proactive and preventative in our pastoral care. “Prevention is better
than cure” is the well known saying, and often it is so much more effective than attempting (to change the metaphor) “to
lock the stable door after the horse has bolted.”
2.1.4 Lest all this sounds too negative, we ought also to remember the positive aspects, not least of which is the fact
that marriage is one of the few areas where the minister not only has a statutory role, but also he is willingly given a
spiritual, pastoral and evangelistic opportunity and that at a most intimate stage of people’s lives, as they get married.
2.2.1 Marriage in the Bible For a Christian trying to understand marriage, a knowledge of what the Bible has to
teach – the Biblical background – is essential.
2.2.2 The origin of marriage is in the doctrine of the image of God in Genesis 1. Right from the beginning we are told
that God created the human race in the image of God and that both male and female are in the image of God. There is this
essential equality of both man and woman being in the image of God. Also the fact that he created the male and female
together in the image of God and told them to be fruitful and to multiply means that the community of marriage and
family has this amazing nobility that is given to it, right at the start. It is this community of marriage that reflects the
God-head – the community of the Trinity, because in marriage and family you have this community of persons bound
together by love, and it is a reflection (maybe a pale reflection) of the God-head. This places marriage in a greatly

honourable and noble position. The result is that marriage is extraordinarily important, socially, spiritually and in terms
of personal development. That’s why it is so crucial, not only for the Church but also for society, that marriage is reinvigorated
in our society today.
2.2.3 God's creation of male and female teaches the normality of marriage. Of the solitary Adam, God said, “It is not
good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:18). This means in part that the solitary
human being is not the perfect expression of the image of God which is unity in community. But surely it also means
that this solitary state was not good for Adam. There was no legitimate way in which his sexual potential could be
fulfilled.
2.2.4 It clearly follows that the sexual relationship is good. Sexual attraction was most emphatically not, as is often
popularly imagined, the original sin or the result of that sin. God declared that it was not good for the man to be alone.
He then created the woman and brought her to the man. It was only after the creation of man, male and female, that
“God saw all that he had made, and it was very good”. God created sex and declared it good.
2.2.5 The fundamental biblical text on marriage is Genesis 2:24, which is quoted in the New Testament by both Jesus
and Paul (Matthew 19:5, Ephesians 5:31): “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his
wife, and they will become one flesh.”
2.2.6 God created man in his own image. But it would appear that the full expression of that image was only reached
with the creation of woman. In other words the image of God is not perfectly expressed in the solitary individual Adam
but in the marriage relationship of Adam and Eve. Yes, the individual human being expresses God's image, but human
beings in relationship express it better and a man and woman in the married relationship best of all. This is because God
is not a monolithic One. He is Three-in-One. He exists in the perfect and (to us) mysterious community of three
persons. But is there not also something beautiful and mysterious about the oneness of a man and a woman in love? The
Christian at least knows why that mysterious beauty exists. It is a reflection of heaven on earth. Except for the incarnate
Son of God and his love for his people, it is the nearest thing to the divine in the world.
2.2.7 It is little wonder that the first recorded human utterance is a love song, a poem (Genesis 2:23):
This is now bone of my bone
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called woman
for she was taken out of man.
2.2.8 But is not this view pure romantic fantasy? Surely many marriages have been nearer to hell on earth than
heaven on earth. This is no doubt true, but that is because the greater something is, the more potential it has for evil as
well as for good. The higher and more noble a creature, the more it can be corrupted to evil. A man can do more harm
than a dog, a king more than commoner, an archangel most of all.
2.2.9 Nevertheless, it is “for this reason” that a man shall “leave, be united and become one flesh”. Ever since the
differentiation of the human race into male and female there has been a yearning in the heart of man for the re-union of
what has been separated. This is the origin of sexual attraction. And it is God who has caused it. And he caused it in
Eden before the Fall. It is his precious gift to mankind.
2.2.10 Walter Trobisch, in his book I Married You, vi argues that Genesis 2:24 sums up the three sides to marriage.
First, there’s the leaving which speaks about the public, the social and the legal side of marriage. Secondly, there is what
is translated in the AV by the word “cleave”. Cleaving means to be united, to be joined together. This speaks about the
commitment side of marriage, love in its fullest sense, in the total commitment to one another to be united together.
Thirdly, there is the area of one flesh which includes the whole area of being one emotionally and one sexually.
2.2.11 Leave Leaving father and mother is what may be termed the legal or social aspect of marriage. Marriage is
not a private matter. It is a public matter. It involves two people leaving their families and establishing a new social unit,
a new family. This is not a matter of interest to the two of them alone. This public aspect is always and everywhere an
essential component of marriage. It is what distinguishes it from merely “living together”. Fundamentally it is not “the
piece of paper” that matters; it is the social recognition. This was true in New Testament times when there was
documented marriage (gamos engraphos) and undocumented marriage (gamos agraphos), marriage with or without the
piece of paper, we might say. And there is no hint in the New Testament that undocumented marriages were not
accepted by the apostles as valid. Interestingly, this distinction between what was called regular and irregular marriages
was maintained in Scotland until 1940. And still to this day a couple who have been living together (“cohabitation with

habit and repute”) can apply for public recognition of their relationship to the Court of Session (this has been limited by
the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 - only irregular marriages established before 4 May 2006 will be recognised).
2.2.12 Of course the normal procedure is that there is some kind of public ceremony and celebration. This varies from
culture to culture. In Britain there are two possibilities - civil marriage by a registrar and religious marriage by a minister
(or other recognised person). Both are equally valid from a Christian point of view, but a Christian would normally wish
a Christian ceremony as he recognises that marriage has a spiritual dimension.
2.2.13 So what is a valid marriage? Concepts of legal validity may change and have changed. But valid marriage in
biblical terms is best summed up in the words of the nineteenth century English judge, Lord Penzance, as “the voluntary
union for life of one man and one woman”. Marriage is a union, an intimate partnership and a mutual bond,
distinguished from all other human relationships. It is also a voluntary union. There must be free mutual consent. In
Genesis 24, Rebecca is asked, “Will you go with this man?” So it would appear that even in that very early society there
was an emphasis on the consent of the woman. The family arranged the marriage, but there had to be the free consent of
the woman. This also has a general theological basis. In the New Testament marriage is compared with the relationship
of Christ and his church. Just as there is consent in becoming a Christian, in loving the Lord Jesus, so in the same way
there ought to be consent in marriage. Marriage is also intended to be a permanent relationship – for life. Jesus said,
“What God has joined together let man not separate”. We shall see later that there are biblical grounds for divorce. But
legitimate divorce is not man separating what God has joined together, but God separating what God has joined together.
In addition, of course, marriage is also a monogamous relationship. God did not create two wives for Adam or two
husbands for Eve.
2.2.14 Be united Important though the public aspect of marriage is, it is not the most important. If there is not
the personal cleaving to one another in love, then the public leaving is an empty shell. This is that desire to be with each
other and to share everything with each other, that longing to please one another and to help one another, and that
willingness to sacrifice oneself for the other, which all true lovers know. This love is the most powerful of human
emotions.
Love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a
mighty flame. Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot wash it away. If one were to give all
of his wealth for love, it would be utterly scorned (Song of Songs 8:6,7).
This is the love that has been celebrated in song down through the ages, celebrated even by our own cynical and sensual
age, such as Love me Tender, Love me do, Love Minus Zero/No Limit, The Power of Love, Love is in the air, Love will
find a way – just in recent decades. For many it is the one reality to cling on to in a world of plastic and junk, although
no one seems to understand it. In fact in a machine universe it is the only mysterious thing left – something more than
animal sex, something more than self-interest. For many it is the only glimpse they ever get of the world beyond this, of
eternal reality, the only hint that their neat mechanistic, humanistic explanations may be false. Only the Bible explains
this love. We are made in the image of the God who is love, the God who created us male and female in order that we
would love in a God-like way.
2.2.15 But tragically in our sin and rebellion we worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator. We make a
god out of love, or our lovers, and like all the gods they fail us, because they cannot bear the weight of our dependence
and worship. They were never meant to. God created Eve as Adam's helper, not his goddess. The love of man for
woman and of woman for man, wonderful and valid at its own level, was never intended to vie with God's love for
humans and humans’ love for God. However, there is a proper relationship between the two loves. It is an analogical, or
typical relationship. Human marital love, valid at its own level, is also a picture or reflection of divine love.
2.2.16 This is a theme that runs through the Bible, recurring several times in the prophets but reaching its zenith in
Paul's teaching in Ephesians 5:22-33. There the Apostle, in his customary manner, weaves together practical counsel for
married couples and profound theology concerning the relationship of Christ and his church. Wives are to submit to their
husbands as the church submits to Christ; husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church. The love between
man and woman is a parallel to the love between Christ and his church. It is impossible to conceive of marriage being
accorded a higher honour, or being placed in a nobler context.
2.2.17 Become one flesh Marriage is more than a socially recognised relationship and more than a personal
loving relationship. It is essentially a sexual relationship. “The two will become one flesh” (Matthew 19:5). It has
become a commonplace that Christianity is prudish. However, the Bible is not open to such a charge. It is candid about
the physical aspect of marriage, whether in matter-of-fact passages like Genesis 2, or in the gloriously sensual and
romantic poetry of the Song of Solomon.

2.2.18 Man has held three views of his body, says C. S. Lewis (and therefore three views of sex):
First there is that of those ascetic Pagans who called it the prison or tomb of the soul . . . . a source
of nothing but temptation to bad men and humiliation to good ones. Then there are the Neo-Pagans
. . . . the nudists and the Sufferers from Dark Gods, to whom the body is glorious. But thirdly we
have the view which St. Francis expressed by calling his body “Brother Ass” . . . . Ass is exquisitely
right because no one in his senses can either revere or hate a donkey. It is . . . both pathetically
and absurdly beautiful. So the body. vii
2.2.19 A similar combination of the sublime and the ridiculous is to be found, C. S. Lewis believes, in the act of
physical intercourse. “Lovers, unless their love is very short-lived, again and again feel an element not only of comedy,
not only of play, but even of buffoonery, in the body's expression of Eros ..... There is indeed at certain moments a high
poetry in the flesh itself; but also, by your leave, an irreducible element of obstinate and ludicrous un-poetry.” viii
2.2.20 The point is that the Bible encourages us to accept our bodies and our sexual natures as good gifts from God
capable of giving us moments of ecstasy as well as times of frustration, being vehicles of beauty as well as of temptation.
The Christian will accept neither the extreme of deification of sex, nor the extreme of revulsion at the physical.
2.2.21 The Christian's unashamed acceptance of the sensual and sexual in marriage is expressed supremely in the Song
of Solomon. This is not to say that it cannot teach us about the higher love of Christ for his church. E. J. Young
comments “Not only does it speak of the purity of human love, but by its very inclusion in the Canon it reminds us of a
love that is purer than our own.” ix But it reminds us of such a love simply because the Bible teaches quite clearly that the
love of man for woman is a reflection of God's love for his people.
2.2.22 However, the Song of Solomon is a celebration of the pure physical expression of love between a man and
woman. It teaches us there is nothing dirty or obscene about sex in its proper context, which is within marriage. It is for
our joy and comfort and for the physical expression of our unity in love. There is no human oneness closer than that of a
couple who are truly one flesh, in harmony emotionally, spiritually and physically. The same acceptance of sex as a
good gift of God is expressed, if somewhat more prosaically, by the Apostle Paul. In 1 Timothy 4:3-5, after warning
against false teachers, he says:
They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be
received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything God created is
good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by
the word of God and prayer.
2.2.23 Marriage, including sexual expression, is a good gift of God and to be received with thanksgiving. Paul is even
more explicit in 1 Corinthians 7:4,5 (and it is interesting how Paul stresses equal rights for women in marriage here):
The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way the
husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except
by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.
2.2.24 The Bible, in spite of its frank acceptance of sex, does not go into detail about sexual technique. It respects the
privacy and intimacy of marriage. Equally it does not forbid whatever sexual intimacy is mutually acceptable. There is a
tremendous freedom in the exclusive loving relationship of marriage. There is no need for husbands and wives to feel
guilty about what they both enjoy.
2.2.25 It is interesting that the foundation text of marriage (Genesis 2:24) says nothing about the procreation of
children. This is important. Although it is obvious that procreation may be a consequence of sexual intercourse, it is not
essential to its nature. The purpose of sex is wholly served if it expresses the true loving unity of a married couple. That
is not to say that the procreation of children and their upbringing in a loving relationship are unimportant. The Bible
places tremendous importance on them. It is part of God's perfect plan that children should be conceived in loving
tenderness, but at least one purpose of sex can be achieved even if children are not conceived.
2.2.26 Of course, the place for sexual expression is firmly within the mutual trust and security of a life-long marriage
relationship. But such a relationship does not suddenly come into being. It is the result of the gradual process of falling
in love, going together and engagement. Throughout that process not only is there an increasing emotional unity, but
there is also a pressure to increasing physical intimacy. The Bible does not give us any specific guidelines. But if we are
in such a position we should ask ourselves if our behaviour towards one another is tending to increase the pressure
towards full sexual commitment before we have fully committed ourselves in marriage. If so, we are playing with fire.
We are in danger of introducing guilt and fear into the one human relationship where they should certainly be excluded.

2.3.1 Marriage Vows In addition, recent research (such as that of David Instone-Brewer – see below) has
uncovered the fact that in the ancient world generally, but specifically in Israel, there were four recognised promises that
couples made to each other in marriage: to feed, clothe, express conjugal love and be faithful. These principles can be
found in Exodus 21:10-11 and Deuteronomy 24:1-4. They express in a more practical way what it means to “cleave to
and become one flesh”.
2.3.2 It is interesting that these promises in the contract or covenant of marriage are reflected to this day in marriage
vows – “to love, comfort, honour and keep”, “to love honour and cherish” etc. More concerning this will be noticed in
the section on Divorce.
2.3.3 While we in the Free Church have no set form of marriage vows or marriage ceremony, yet it is important that
we do not jettison the essential biblical components of the traditional marriage vows. We not only have to ensure that we
are fulfilling our legal obligations (to obtain the free consent of the couple to marry and to declare them to be husband
and wife), but we also ought to ensure that we are reflecting the biblical commitments in the covenant of marriage.
2.4.1 Consanguinity and Affinity There is one area that is not dealt with, of course, in Lord Penzance’s very
brief definition of marriage, and that is that marriage must not involve the committing of incest. There are the laws
governing degrees of consanguinity and affinity. The Westminster Confession (24.4) adopts generally the Scriptural
position from Leviticus 18, also 1 Corinthians 5:1. The present civil legislation is rather different.
2.4.2 Consanguinity refers to people who are related to oneself, like mother/father, sister/brother and so on. Affinity
refers to people who have a similar type of relationship of consanguinity, but to one’s wife/husband or ex-wife/exhusband
or one’s deceased wife/husband. There is now quite a difference between what is forbidden in the Old
Testament and what is allowed in legal terms. For instance, modern legislation allows marriage to a wife’s sister, not just
to a deceased wife’s sister, but to a divorced wife’s sister. Also marriage to a wife’s aunt or a wife’s niece is no longer
forbidden. Indeed, in certain circumstances, there are no limitations for affinity at all (see table below). So there is a
difference in the modern legislation between consanguinity and affinity, whereas the Old Testament position and the
Westminster Confession position appear that it should be identical for both. There was the exception in Old Testament
law for levirate marriage, and there is the possibility that property rights had a large part to play in the Old Testament
regulation. However, this is too complex a subject to enter into here.
2.4.3 The following tables and notes are from the current publication issued by the National Records for Scotland:
DEGREES OF RELATIONSHIP WITHIN WHICH MARRIAGE IS UNLAWFUL
1. Relationships by consanguinity
A man may not marry his:
Mother
Daughter
Grandmother
Granddaughter
Sister
Aunt
Niece
Great-grandmother
Great-granddaughter
2. Relationships by affinity – see note below
A man may not marry his:
Former wife's daughter or granddaughter
Former civil partner's daughter or granddaughter
Father's or grandfather's former wife
Mother’s or grandmother's former civil partner
3. Relationships by adoption
A woman may not marry her:
Father
Son
Grandfather
Grandson
Brother
Uncle
Nephew
Great-grandfather
Great-grandson
A woman may not marry her:
Former husband's son or grandson
Former civil partner's son or grandson
Mother's or grandmother's former husband
Father’s or grandfather's former civil partner

A man may not marry his:
Adoptive mother or former adoptive mother
Adopted daughter or former adopted daughter
Note:
A woman may not marry her:
Adoptive father or former adoptive father
Adopted son or former adopted son
Parties related within the degrees listed at 2 can marry if both are 21 years of age or over at the time of the marriage
and the younger party has not, before his or her 18th birthday, lived in the same household as the other party and been
treated by that person as a child of the family.
In the case of a party to a marriage whose gender has become the acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act
2004, any reference to a former wife or husband includes (respectively) any former husband or former wife.
By contrast, the Confession of Faith position is that the degrees of affinity correspond to those of consanguinity.
2.5 Complementarity Another Biblical aspect of marriage is complementarity – for instance the emphasis
in Ephesians 5:22-23 on the comparison made between the marriage relationship on the one hand and the relationship
between Christ and his Church on the other. It surely speaks supremely of the great nobility of marriage that it is even
spoken of in the same breath as the relationship between Christ and his Church. But also it emphasises that there are
different roles in marriage. We have already stressed the emphasis the Bible has right from the beginning on the equality
of man and women before God being equally made in the image of God. However, there is also an emphasis in the Bible
on the headship of the husband and the submission of the wife. It is interesting to compare this again to the Doctrine of
the Trinity, because essentially there is the co-equality of the persons of the Trinity, but in the incarnation of the Lord
Jesus there was a willing submission to the will of the Father, and that is actually used in the New Testament in relation
to marriage. “Just as the man is the head of the woman, so Christ is the head of the Church and God is the head of Christ”
(1 Corinthians 11:3). So there is a kind of headship of the husband, but it is a particular kind of headship. It is not some
sort of domineering, tyrannical headship. It is the headship of Christ, so husbands should ask: How does Christ act as
head of the Church? Similarly, the kind of submission that is required of the wife is not some kind of slavish fear. It’s the
submission of the Church to Christ. So the whole thing is bound up in love, Christ’s love for his Church and the Church’s
love for Christ. In addition it should be noted that the immediately preceding verse in Ephesians (5:21) enjoins us all to
submit to one another.
2.6.1 Marrying in the Lord Another emphasis in the Biblical teaching about marriage is the emphasis in the New
Testament about marrying in the Lord. Now this is an area that can provide quite a bit of difficulty when a Christian
wants to marry someone who is not a believer. Often the text that is used to prove this is not the best one: “be not
unequally yoked with unbelievers”. The context of that in 2 Corinthians 6:14 is not marriage, but idolatry (although, of
course, the principle still applies). However, there are other passages that do speak about this area. For instance in 1
Corinthians 7:12ff. Paul is speaking about a Christian who is already married to a non-Christian. This would have
happened quite often in New Testament times. A wife or a husband would be converted, but the other partner was not
converted or not yet converted. So what does Paul say about that situation? He says if the unbelieving partner is willing
to remain, to stay in the marriage, then the Christian should stay. In other words they should stay together.
2.6.2 However, this same passage speaks about what is desirable. In 1 Corinthians 7:39, where Paul is talking about a
Christian widow whose husband has died, he says she is free to marry again, but only in the Lord. This means that she
should marry a Christian; she should enter into a relationship where the other person is also in a right relationship with
the Lord. So there is clear guidance from Scripture, but the pastoral situation may be very unclear. What does the
minister do where Scripture has not been followed, or where it is not being followed? He must give firm counsel to
individuals when he has opportunity, but he must handle the situation sensitively, continuing to support and give pastoral
care, even if the couple ignore his counsel, with a view to the conversion of the unbeliever and supporting and
encouraging the believer. We should not drive them away.
2.7.1 Understanding Marriage – the historical perspective We should also look briefly at the historical
perspective on marriage. Here the booklet on Marriage and Divorce (Free Church of Scotland Study Panel, 1988) is very
helpful. Marriage has a complicated history in Europe in general and in Scotland in particular. In first century Greek and
Roman society the situation was very different from today. There wasn’t the emphasis on legal documentation for
marriage that exists now. There were some documented marriages, but that was only when a lot of property was
involved. Most marriages were undocumented, yet they were recognised socially and publicly. Of course, there was
betrothal and there was some kind of ceremony and social, public celebration. The New Testament situation was very
complex as we know from 1 Corinthians, and yet we have no practical guidance as to how the apostles viewed the

various kinds of marriage situation that there were. They simply seemed to view the marriages people were in when they
became Christians as valid. (Similarly, today we would regard marriage by a registrar as a valid marriage.)
2.7.2 Following that there was the whole medieval development of Canon Law which is extremely complex. But it is
clear that in some ways the church was moving far beyond what the Bible says, for instance in their development of the
concept of consanguinity. The Canon Law excluded cousins of the sixth degree. In other words, you couldn’t marry your
sixth cousin. And of course divorce was absolutely prohibited.
2.7.3 Then with the Reformation, there was the rejection of the sacramental status of marriage (marriage was viewed
and, is still viewed by the Roman Catholic Church, as a sacrament), the unbiblical restrictions regarding consanguinity
(the Reformers allowed the marriage of first cousins) and the absolute indissolubility of marriage.
2.7.4 However, Scotland has been slightly different in many ways from the time of the Reformation. For instance,
alone amongst all the nations of Christendom it retained some principles of Canon Law until quite recent times. The
distinction between regular and irregular marriages was recognised by the State up to 1940. Irregular refers to a couple
simply giving consent before two witnesses, and both the Church and State recognised the validity of that marriage. This
was abolished in 1940, but nonetheless it remains part of the folk memory of people as they think about marriage, and so
the situation in Scotland can often be quite different from other parts of the world. Also, all matters relating particularly
to divorce were dealt with by what’s called a commissary court and its proceedings were secret, so there is a great lack of
academic knowledge about what actually took place in relation to marriage and divorce during that period.
2.7.5 In this context the Free Church’s Study Panel Marriage and Divorce booklet (1988) warns:
…we as a people or a Church cannot slough off the past and forget it. That is why we must be very
careful in reading books on marriage and divorce by authors of a different background - e.g. English or
American - which may be excellent in other respects.
An example of this occurs in Divorce and Remarriage in the Church by David Instone-Brewer:
People have interpreted what the Bible says about divorce and remarriage in two main ways (although there are many
others):
1. There are two valid grounds for divorce, but remarriage is not allowed unless one of the couple has died.
2. There are no grounds for divorce or even separation.
However, in Scotland since the Reformation a different position has been held: that there are two valid grounds for
divorce (adultery and desertion) and that remarriage is allowed.
2.7.6 Present civil legislation concerning marriage in Scotland is given in the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 (as
amended by subsequent legislation). x The legislation is helpfully summarised in a leaflet prepared by the General
Registrar of Scotland. xi Present legislation is generally consistent with Christian principles apart from the portion relating
to the degrees of affinity (as already mentioned above). However, the Scottish Government have at present issued a
consultative document, in which they state their intention to introduce legislation allowing same sex couples to get
married: “We tend towards the view that religious ceremonies for civil partnerships should no longer be prohibited and
that same sex marriage should be introduced so that same sex couples have the option of getting married if that is how
they wish to demonstrate their commitment to each other.” xii The Prime Minister of the Westminster Government has
also backed the idea for England and Wales. Thus it is essential that we deal with this subject in this Report.
3.1.1 “Same sex marriage” Sex researcher Dr Alfred C. Kinsey published research on the sexual behaviour of
men and women in the 1940s and 1950s which claimed that 10% of males were more or less exclusively homosexual and
around 5% of women. However, this has been extensively challenged in recent years. This is summarised by Peter
Saunders and Rachael Pickering thus: “For decades, researchers adopted Kinsey's reported figure of 10% for the
general incidence of homosexuality. Kinsey's study had been poorly designed, using a non-randomly selected population,
25% of whom had been prisoners. The figures stood unchallenged until quashed by contemporary research; a figure of
1-2% is now generally quoted.” xiii and The Guardian reported on 23 September 2010 “Just one in 100 people in the UK
say they are gay or lesbian… A further one in every 200 people is bisexual, according to the data published by the Office
for National Statistics.” So that’s around 1.5%. The gay lobby seems to have a disproportionate influence in the media
and politics compared to their numbers.
3.1.2 It is not only the incidence of homosexuality that is controversial; the causes of homosexuality are also hugely
controversial even among homosexuals themselves. Generally from the 1960s onwards society has moved from a

medical understanding of homosexuality as a perversion to an acceptance that this is natural for some people. Lady
Gaga’s song ‘Born this way’ is just one example from popular culture of the expression of this view: “No matter gay,
straight or bi / Lesbian, transgendered life… / I was born this way”. xiv The song also implies that whatever we are, we are
just the way God created us. Saunders comments: “Many people are sympathetic to persons with same-sex attraction
demand for a ‘right’ to marry because they believe that such persons were ‘born that way’ and can’t change; therefore,
allowing them to call their relationships marriages gives such persons their only opportunity for a recognised
relationship.” xv
3.1.3 What is the scientific evidence? In an extensive study in 1995, editors John DeCecco and David Parker
concluded, “Current research into possible biological bases of sexual preference has failed to produce any conclusive
evidence.” xvi Saunders adds, “And since 1995 no new scientific, replicated studies have even claimed to find a biological
cause for same sex attraction.” xvii
3.1.4 If the evidence is lacking to support the view that there is some genetic or other biological cause of
homosexuality, is there evidence for environmental factors being a cause – nurture, rather than nature? Again here the
evidence is not clear. Saunders comments: “While there will always be those who support one sole model of causation,
most concede that many factors are involved. Heredity, environment and personal choice all play a part. This should
leave us with a humble and open attitude, willing to learn more from scientific research and the testimony of skilled
counsellors and gay people.” xviii
3.1.5 However, all too often the role of personal choice is ignored. Saunders states: “We are not solely genetic
machines anymore than we are blank slates on which experience writes. At some point, every practising homosexual
makes a choice to indulge in homosexual fantasy or to have gay sex. However, we must not make the mistake of ignoring
the role of nature and nurture in making those of homosexual orientation what they are.”
3.2.1 What is the Bible’s teaching? In the beginning God created a human pair who were equally human, but
different and complementary. This is God’s pattern for human sexual love – “For this reason a man will leave his father
and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Nothing is clearer in the Bible’s
teaching on sexual love than this stress that it is God’s will that human sexuality should be expressed only in the oneman-one-woman
lifelong relationship of marriage. God did not create several Eves for Adam, or several Adams for Eve.
Nor did he create another Adam for Adam, or another Eve for Eve.
3.2.2 Homosexual orientation As we have seen, many see nothing wrong with homosexuality. They argue
that the true homosexual is only acting in accordance with his or her nature. They are just born that way. Or it is just the
way they were brought up. They are homosexual not by choice, but as a result of genetic or environmental factors.
3.2.3 So, does this mean that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality? If that was the way a person was created,
should we not just accept that this is God’s will for them? But what do we mean when we say “This is the way God has
made me”? We have moved a long way from the original perfect creation. We have to reckon with the Fall as well. The
world is not now as it was originally created. The human race has rebelled and fallen into a state of sin and misery. We
are born into an already fallen imperfect world and we bring an already corrupted human nature with us. Our
personalities are complexes of all kinds of sinful desires. No aspect of our humanity escapes unscathed. Our sexuality is
not immune. We may inherit various tendencies to rebel against God’s order of things and we may respond in a sinful
way to various evil influences we experience.
3.2.4 Does this mean that we are absolved of all personal responsibility for any departure from the pattern laid down
by God in our sexuality? No, no more than it does in the area of any of the other commandments of God – respect for
life, property and our neighbour’s reputation. When we have said all that can be said by way of understanding the causes
of homosexuality, we have only explained some of the reasons for homosexual temptation, or orientation. We have done
no more than what we could do in the case of heterosexual sin. We have not proved that homosexual acts ought to be
excluded from the Biblical category of sin.
3.2.5 However, it is important that the distinction be made between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity.
We cannot blame a person for being tempted in a particular direction, otherwise we could blame Jesus, because he was
tempted in all points as we are. Yet it is made clear that he was without sin. Normally, the individual is not responsible
for his temptation. But he is responsible for his response to it, and to avoid situations in which he may expect to be
tempted.
3.2.6 Homosexual activity What has the Bible to say specifically about homosexual activity? In both Old
Testament and New Testament homosexual acts are described as sins. Michael Vasey, in his influential book Strangers

and Friends, looks at various biblical texts in his attempt to show that the Bible does not condemn homosexual activity
as such. We will look at the main texts.
3.2.7 Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus
18:22). “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable” (Leviticus
20:13). There is little dispute as to what these laws mean. Vasey agrees that 'these verses prohibit sexual intercourse
between men.' xix However, there is no indication in the text that this is limited to anal intercourse, as Vasey suggests. It
is simply homosexual sexual activity as such that is indicated - one man acting erotically with another. Where there is
more serious divergence of views, however, is concerning the question of whether this prohibition still applies. Vasey
argues: ‘Firstly, it can be seen simply as part of an arbitrary purity code abrogated with the coming of Christ… Secondly,
it can be viewed as a witness to an unchanging creation pattern for human genital acts. Thirdly, it can be regarded as
some sort of combination of the two.’ xx Vasey opts for the third, but does not make clear how the two can be reconciled.
What is clear is that some aspects of the law are abrogated by Christ. Jesus abrogates the death penalty for sexual sin
(not only in John 8:11, but also in his replacement of the death penalty for adultery with divorce, Matthew 19:9). In
addition, he shows that the regulations concerning a woman's 'uncleanness' (Leviticus 18:19) are no longer valid, as he
does not regard himself as contaminated by the touch of the woman with the issue of blood (Mark 5:25-34). But neither
the Lord nor his apostles indicate that homosexual acts are to be excluded from the category of sinful behaviour (any
more than child-sacrifice and bestiality, Leviticus 18:21,23, are to be excluded.) Instead, there are clear statements in the
New Testament to the contrary - homosexual sex is still regarded as sinful. Any approach which appeals to the New
Testament's abrogation of any Old Testament command must be on the sure ground of being able to show that the
command is specifically abrogated or fulfilled, or belongs to a class of commands (such as ceremonial or judicial) which
is generally abrogated or fulfilled. This cannot be shown in the instance of the commands against homosexual sin.
3.2.8 Romans 1.25-27 ‘Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural
relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with woman and were inflamed
with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty of
their perversion.’ Vasey attempts to lessen the impact of these verses by arguing that they are the culturally conditioned
views of the Roman world by a Jew and that they are not referring to loving homosexual relationships. xxi This comes
across as very special pleading. Romans 1-3 is a unit. Here Paul is showing that ‘all have sinned and fall short of the
glory of God’ (Romans 3:23). Paul shows the development of sin from the Fall and included in this development is
homosexual behaviour. What is clear is that Paul is clearly describing as sinful, the abandoning by men of sexual
intercourse with women, in favour of sexual intercourse with other men. It is this, together with his use of the
expressions ‘inflamed with lust’ and ‘committed indecent acts’, that demonstrates that homosexual sexual activity is
sinful. This ought not to be considered a culturally conditioned view, any more than the position that greed, envy,
murder, strife, deceit, malice and gossip are also regarded as sinful (Romans 1:29).
3.2.9 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 ‘Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor
homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of
God.’ This passage particularly shows that God declares homosexual acts to be sinful. They are contrary to God’s will
and, along with all other sins, exclude the unrepentant sinner from the kingdom of God. It is argued by Vasey and others,
however, that this, along with other passages in the Bible that appear to be talking about homosexuality are in fact not
talking about stable, loving homosexual relationships, but about homosexual rape, religious male prostitution and
pederasty. However, the key passages quoted above are quite clear. They use very plain language. They talk about lying
with a man as one lies with a woman. In fact it appears that in 1 Corinthians 6:9 Paul possibly invented a compound
Greek word for homosexual (arsenokoites), meaning precisely one who lies sexually with a man or one who beds a man
when there were various other Greek words he could have used if he wanted to refer to homosexual rape, male
prostitution or pederasty. Paul, or someone else before him, probably derived the term arsenokoites from the Greek
Septuagint version of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 where the terms arsen (male) and koite (bed) are used. xxii Paul’s use of
this word, linked with the clear command in Leviticus, makes it abundantly plain that it is all homoerotic behaviour that
is prohibited. It is not just homosexual rape, male prostitution or pederasty that is wrong. It is homosexual sexual
activity as such that is wrong. All attempts to avoid the plain meaning of the words appear as very weak special pleading.
3.2.10 So, on the basis of Scripture the Christian cannot accept that homosexuality is natural in the sense of being in
line with God’s will for us. The Bible teaches that a man and a woman are designed for each other sexually – they, and
they alone, become one flesh. By contrast, both Old Testament and New confirm that homosexual sexual activity is
included in the category of sin, along with the heterosexual sins of adultery and fornication. Vasey seems constantly to
miss the point. He seems to think that the Bible, for cultural reasons, condemns certain sexual practices, such as anal
intercourse, irrespective of the sex of those involved. xxiii What the Bible makes clear is that homosexual sex of any kind
is included in the category of sin, along with the heterosexual sins of adultery and fornication. The Bible recognises only
one sexual relationship which has God’s approval – that is, marriage.

3.2.11 One sin among many However, it must always be remembered that homosexual activity is only one sin
among many. Yes, homosexual acts are among the sins that, if persisted in, exclude from the kingdom of God, but
equally so do promiscuous heterosexual acts, theft, drunkenness and slander (1 Corinthians 6:9,10). There is nothing in
the Bible that would single out homosexuals as worse sinners than any other sinners. Even if we accept that homosexual
sex was one of the sins of Sodom we must remember what Jesus said to the city of Capernaum that refused to repent – ‘it
will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgement than for you’ (Matthew 11:24).
3.2.12 Homosexual sex is sin, and as sin it brings its own judgement, even in this life. ‘Men committed indecent acts
with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion’ (Romans 1:27). Sin brings misery.
Whatever a man sows that he shall also reap. But the Lord Jesus helped people with all kinds of diseases and troubles
and sins without respect to how these may have been caused, and he resisted the judgemental attitude so prevalent in the
society of his time (Luke 13:1-5, John 9:1-3).
3.2.13 The terms “homophobia” and “homophobic” tend to be used of anyone who dares to question the present
politically correct views on homosexuality and same sex marriage. Homophobia comes directly from Greek and literally
means “fear of the same” (cf. arachnophobia, fear of spiders), but has come to mean hatred of homosexuals. As
Christians we are neither to fear nor hate anyone, but follow our Lord in his loving attitude to all kinds of sinners. Of
course there is a certain irony in the use of the term homophobia. If it is indeed a condition, perhaps the “homophobe”
was born that way, or his environment has caused his homophobia – he has not chosen it!
3.2.14 Good news for homosexuals Homosexual sexual activity is sinful. But the Bible’s emphasis on sin is not
meant to drive us away from God to destruction and despair, but to show us our desperate need of the redemption
accomplished by Christ and to call us to faith in him. After all, the Christian message is one of forgiveness and only a
person who has done wrong can be forgiven. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, after listing the lifestyles, including homosexual
ones, which exclude one from the kingdom of God, Paul says to the Corinthian Christians, “And that is what some of you
were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the
Spirit of our God”.
3.2.15 Corinth was a notorious centre of all kinds of vice in the ancient world and some of the Christians had been
converted out of such a vicious background. There were Christians who had been male prostitutes and homosexual
offenders, but they had been transformed by the grace of God. They were freed from the vices that had once enslaved
them. The gospel is a message of hope and the church is a community of hope. The church of Jesus Christ is made up
one hundred per cent of moral failures. But they are moral failures who have been given a new life and a new lifestyle.
All Christians, whatever their sexual orientation, are called to live a celibate life while single and to exclusive
faithfulness within marriage.
3.3.1 Same Sex Marriage? The sections on marriage from the Universal Convention on Human Rights and the
European Convention on Human Rights are often referred to in this discussion. The relevant sections are as follows:
Universal Convention on Human Rights, Article 16
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to
found a family…
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 12 Right to marry
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws
governing the exercise of this right.
3.3.2 Professor Hugh McLachlan argues as follows: “What this says is that the rights pertaining to marriage of men
and women should be the same. It does not say that men should marry only women or that women should marry only
men.” This is really reading back into the text one’s own ideas. If that was really what they meant they would have said
human beings (not men and women), and they would have said “without limitation due to race, nationality, religion or
sex”.

3.3.3 Right to same sex marriage? There are some things that we all have equal rights to – equality before the
law, right to life, right to property etc. But we don’t have rights to everything. You don’t have a right to be a ballerina, or
an opera singer, or a brain surgeon. Only those appropriately equipped, physically or mentally, can become one of those.
A man does not have the right to bear and give birth to a baby – he is not physically (or psychologically) equipped for it.
3.3.4 Similarly, two people of the same sex have no right to marriage – because marriage is for a man and a woman. It
is not just that this is the teaching of the Bible; it is the practice of the human race from time immemorial. Do we think
that we can simply overturn the wisdom of the human race over thousands of years, and for there not to be destructive
consequences?
3.3.5 It is generally recognised that our human rights are restricted by the rights of others. For instance, I have a right
to freedom of speech. But my freedom of speech is restricted by the right of my neighbour not to be slandered.
3.3.6 Similarly with regard to marriage. If it is argued that we have a right to marry, that right may be restricted by the
rights of others – for instance the right of a child to have a father and mother. This is something that is hardly ever
considered. But a mother and father provide different kinds of love and care to a child, and people of the same sex simply
cannot provide this.
3.3.7 However, in relation to single parent families, the question is not what may happen in life – children may be
deprived of a parent by death, or by marriage breakdown, or by teenage pregnancy. But that is a different matter
altogether from the State actually legitimising and encouraging the existence of fatherless or motherless children.
3.3.8 The pressure from the gay lobby for same sex marriage and adoption of children comes because homosexuality
is a biological dead end. Same sex couples are physically incapable of procreation. But they want to bring up children in
order that their own values are passed on to a new generation. And of course by getting the right to marry, they get more
respectability for bringing up children (they already have the right to foster and adopt). This is huge social experiment, in
which the guinea pigs are children. That is not fair or just to children and does not safeguard their rights.
3.3.9 In addition, the civil rights of homosexuals are already safeguarded through civil partnerships, so there is no real
need for same sex marriage. It is really being pushed in a doctrinaire way by the gay lobby, without any consideration of
the harm that it will do to marriage.
3.3.10 The whole idea of the State or Government redefining marriage is wrong-headed, if not oppressive. Sir William
Scott said that marriage “is the parent, not the child of civil society.” xxiv Marriage existed long before the idea of the
modern State. It does not belong to us as political animals; it belongs to us as human beings made in the image of God.
We redefine it at our peril.
4.1.1 Divorce According to the traditional Scottish Presbyterian view (as expressed in the Westminster
Confession of Faith), divorce is allowed, but only on two grounds – adultery and wilful desertion – and the divorced
party is allowed to remarry. But right at the outset we are presented with a problem. The words of Jesus seem to imply
that there is only one ground for divorce – adultery (Matthew 5:32 and 19:9). Paul adds a second ground – desertion (1
Corinthians 7:15). If Paul is right, then Jesus cannot be understood as saying that adultery is the only ground for divorce.
It must be recognised here that some do not admit that Paul is talking of another ground for divorce. Andrew Cornes, for
instance, in his Marriage and Divorce xxv , takes the traditional Church of England position, that Paul allows separation,
but not divorce and remarriage. However, his argument is weakened by the fact he does not accept that Jesus allows
remarriage after divorce for adultery either.
4.1.2 In addition, there are the problems of understanding how Jesus’ words, “Moses permitted you to divorce your
wives because your hearts were hard”, relate to Old Testament teaching about divorce, and also of how Jesus’ teaching as
recorded by Mark (10:1-12) accords with that recorded by Matthew (19:1-12). In Mark he appears to say that any
remarriage after divorce involves committing adultery, but in Matthew he seems to make an exception in the case of
divorce for fornication.
4.1.3 In grappling with these difficulties, a different perspective has emerged in recent years. One of the leading
exponents of this view is David Instone-Brewer. He has written two books, one more academic (Divorce and Remarriage
in the Bible) and one more popular (Divorce and Remarriage in the Church). He has used his research into rabbinic
literature and other recently discovered and translated contemporary historical documents to shed further light on the
religious, cultural and historical background to the text. Much more has been discovered in recent years about Judaism,
the teaching of the Rabbis and Pharisaism than was known in even the first half of the twentieth century. Such new
discoveries, and the new emphases that emerge from them, have to be treated with some caution, as is shown by “the new
perspective on Paul”, for instance.

4.1.4 However, it would be utterly wrong for a Bible-believing church such as our own to ignore anything that can
throw light on the meaning of the Biblical text. We lay great emphasis on our ministers being able to understand Greek
and Hebrew, the languages in which the Bible was originally written. But we also need to appreciate that those languages
were used in a particular historical and cultural milieu. For instance, until Greek papyri and ostraca were discovered in
Egypt, classical scholars thought that the New Testament was written in very bad Greek. In fact it is written in the Koine
(common) Greek of the first century. Biblical studies have always benefited from the light thrown on the text of Scripture
by discoveries from the contemporary culture: for instance, the insights given into covenant theology by discoveries
about Ancient Near East suzerainty treaties, which have helped to emphasise the historicity of the Bible. Many
evangelically sound books, such as The Prodigal God by Tim Keller, and Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes by Kenneth
E. Bailey rely heavily on such discoveries and research. xxvi
4.1.5 Instone-Brewer argues that the Old Testament, as understood by the Jewish Rabbis and Jesus’ contemporaries,
teaches that there were a limited number of grounds for divorce:
Adultery (in Deuteronomy 24:1, affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19)
Emotional and physical neglect (in Exodus 21:10-11, affirmed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7)
Abandonment and abuse (included in neglect, as affirmed in 1 Corinthians 7)
Those who divorced on these grounds were entitled to remarry. He argues that the expressions “free” or “not bound”
were clearly understood in this way.
4.1.6 Interestingly, he also argues that these grounds were based on marriage vows which made a commitment to
clothe, feed and love (found in marriage certificates discovered near the Dead Sea). These have formed the basis of
marriage vows ever since, even to the present day – reflected in such phrases as “love, honour and cherish” or “love,
comfort, honour and keep”. The same idea occurs in Ephesians 5:29, where Paul is dealing with marriage and he says
that husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies (verse 28). He continues: “After all, no one ever hated his own
body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the Church”. There is the same emphasis: love, feed and care for.
4.1.7 The implication is that where these commitments are broken, divorce is permitted. Notice, Instone-Brewer says
“permitted”, not mandatory. This is important, as in first century Roman society, divorce was considered mandatory.
4.1.8 If Instone-Brewer is correct, we need to rethink our position on divorce and remarriage. However, even if he is
right, this does not mean that we can simply accept the present civil legal position as being correct. While Instone-
Brewer maintains the idea of fault or guilt in grounds for divorce, the present legal position does not.
4.1.9 Before proceeding to consider Instone-Brewer’s position in more detail, it will be helpful to consider John
Calvin’s concept of accommodation in relation to the subject of divorce. This will show us that the problems Instone-
Brewer wrestles with are not new.
5.1.1 Accommodation While the concept of accommodation is chiefly associated with John Calvin in his
writings in his Institutes and in his Commentaries on Genesis and the Gospels, nevertheless accommodation was not
original to Calvin. We can trace the origins of the concept to the writings of some of the Early Church Fathers. We shall,
briefly consider four examples of the application of accommodation in early Christian writings.
5.1.2 Accommodation in the Early Church Fathers Justin Martyr (c.100 –165) used the concept of
accommodation to explain that God through Moses had given to the Jews laws on circumcision, Sabbaths, sacrifices, and
many other laws because of the hardness of their hearts. However, his use of accommodation sought to bring in a
hermeneutic that had no support in Scripture itself. We can see this in his interpretation of the reasons for the sacrificial
system. He wrote that God, “accommodating Himself to that nation, enjoined them also to offer sacrifices, as if to His
name, in order that you might not serve idols.” xxvii According to Justin Martyr God did not want the Jews to offer
sacrifices, but because of their tendency to idolatry, He accommodated Himself to them by commanding them to bring
sacrifices, but only to Him and not to the idol gods.
5.1.3 Origen (c.185-c.254) finds divine accommodation in Scripture and in the incarnation of Christ. Because of
human weakness, Scripture comes to us in a “poor and humble style.” Several times throughout his writings Origen
describes divine accommodation by picturing God as speaking “baby-talk” to us like a father to his little child or like a
schoolmaster uses “little language” to his pupils (Calvin, himself, would suggest much the same in the Institutes). For
example, in his comments on Jeremiah 18:6-10, where it seems that God changes his mind and “repents” of a certain
contemplated action, Origen assures us that “when divine providence is involved in human affairs, God assumes human
intelligence, manners and language.” xxviii Furthermore, in regard to the Incarnation, Origen applies accommodation. For

Origen, “The incarnate Lord, like the written revelation in inspired Scripture, is a veil that must be penetrated. It is an
accommodation to our present capacities in this life.” xxix
5.1.4 Chrysostom (c.347-407) It seems that of all the church fathers Chrysostom used accommodation
most extensively in his interpretation of Scripture. For example, in his work, ‘On the Incomprehensible Nature of God’
Chrysostom uses accommodation to explain the passage in Ezekiel 1 where both Ezekiel and the cherubim “approached
the divine essence in itself and in its pure state.” Chrysostom argues that such language as used of the cherubim “hiding
their faces with four wings” and of the appearance of heaven presented by Ezekiel in which “the appearance of the
likeness of the glory of God” was revealed speaks of God’s “accommodation of condescension.” xxx
5.1.5 Moreover, as with Origen, he stressed the fact that God in the plan of redemption accommodated Himself to
human weakness. “That he who is God was willing to become man, that he mightily suffered to accommodate himself is
too great to comprehend.” However, sometimes his application of the concept of accommodation seemed to go beyond
the clear meaning of Scripture. Chrysostom argues, for instance, that God had intended for Adam and Eve a state of
virginity, and that marriage is a divine concession or accommodation to their changed condition after they had sinned.
5.1.6 Augustine (354-430) taught that the language of Scripture was accommodated to the understanding of ordinary
readers because it was not intended to teach the theories of natural science. According to Augustine, the original writers
of Scripture accommodated their physical statements to the capacities of ordinary people by describing ‘sensible’
phenomena as they would appear to any observer. Therefore, according to Augustine, physical references should be
interpreted in terms of those things that are immediately obvious to the senses.
5.1.7 For example, Genesis 1:16 refers to the creation of the “two great lights – the greater light to govern the day and
the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.” Augustine asks, “Does this teach that the Moon is larger than
the stars, since the stars are not among the “great lights”?” xxxi Augustine suspected that the stars were small enough to be
set in daily rotation by the rays of the Sun, but nevertheless he insisted that this verse teaches nothing about the Moon’s
actual size. Rather, adopting accommodation Augustine affirmed that it only referred to the relative appearance of the
Moon and stars to the eye.
5.1.8 As we can see, even from this brief summary of accommodation found in the writing of the Early Church
Fathers, the concept of accommodation was used as a tool to interpret Scripture where divine writ appeared to be
compromised and where accommodation helped the reader understand the purposes of God behind such apparent
compromise. Thus, for the writers above, readily understood language by the common man is used in the Bible as a
means of making sense of the incomprehensible; thus such language becomes the key to the understanding of Scripture,
particularly in such areas as creation, the incarnation and the description of God.
5.2.1 Accommodation in John Calvin We now turn to the possible relevance of the doctrine of
accommodation in Calvin to the ethical, social and legislative aspects of marriage and divorce.
5.2.2 The doctrine of Divine Accommodation, outlined by church fathers such as Augustine, Origen and Iranaeus and
emphasised more famously by John Calvin, expresses the position that in all God’s dealings with his people, God adapts
himself to our feeble capacities. This doctrine is considered in relation to God’s accommodating himself to finite human
capacities through divine self-revelation and in God’s accommodation to the sinfulness of his own people.
5.2.3 In two separate but connected comments on the Mosaic permission of divorce – Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and
Matthew 19:3-9 – Calvin reflects on the accommodation of God in permitting divorce. He lays out the divine parameters
that indicate the development from divine prohibition to divine permission. As Calvin declares in his comments on
Deuteronomy 24, xxxii the divine prohibition on divorce was “a perpetual and inviolable rule” and “God has declared, once
for all, that the bond of union between husband and wife is closer than that of parent and child; wherefore, if a son cannot
shake off the paternal yoke, no cause can permit the dissolution of the connection which a man has with his wife.” But as
Calvin states, the Israelites’ “perverseness” was such that they “could not be restrained from dissolving a most sacred and
inviolable tie.”
5.2.4 Thus Calvin indicates what might be considered pragmatic grounds behind the divine permission for divorce:
there is the consideration for the well-being of the woman wronged by the divorcing husband. Calvin continues: “God
chose to make a provision for women who were cruelly oppressed, and for whom it was better that they should at once be
set free, than that they should groan beneath a cruel tyranny during their whole lives.”
5.2.5 Complementary to his discussion of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Calvin, in his comments on Matthew 19:3-9, xxxiii
likewise attributes the accommodation of God in the matter of divorce to the “obstinacy” of the people. Calvin discusses
Jesus’ response to the Pharisees’ question (Matthew 19:3) “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every

eason?” Calvin points out the distinction between God’s lawful enactments and Moses’ permissive legislation. Calvin
says of Jesus’ reply regarding Moses’ granting the certificate of divorce, “Moses permitted it on account of their
obstinacy, and not because he approved of it as lawful.” This is highlighted in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees that “it was
not this way from the beginning.” Thus the inviolability of the creation ordinance of marriage is established; and as
Calvin continues,” it follows that whatever swerves from it does not arise from its pure nature, but from the depravity of
men.” But the question remains: why did Moses enact something that in itself was “bad and sinful”? – to which Calvin
replies “in an unusual sense of the word, he is said to have permitted what he did not severely forbid; for he did not lay
down a law about divorces, so as to give them the seal of his approbation, but as the wickedness of men could not be
restrained in any other way, he applied what was the most admissible remedy, that the husband should, at least, attest the
chastity of his wife.”
5.2.6 Thus, extrapolating from Calvin’s comments on God’s accommodation with respect to divorce, it can be seen
that God’s permitting of divorce does not equate with God’s approval of divorce. Marriage, as a creation ordinance is the
divine ideal and the God-given structure for family life. Any deviation from that ideal is contrary to God‘s intention for
marriage as a life-long commitment between a man and a woman. Moses’ permitting of divorce was just that: a
sufferance, an allowance because of the “hardness of heart” of sinful man. Permission does not imply approval; but
permission is granted as that pragmatic response to the callous nature of the human heart.
5.2.7 Now, in terms of relating the possible relevance of the doctrine of accommodation to the ethical, social and
legislative aspects of marriage and divorce we must abide by the principle set forth in that doctrine in relation to divorce,
viz. God accommodating to human sinfulness. Thus, for example, the church cannot impose a legislative imperative on
marriage that denies divorce. If God accommodates to the sinfulness of the human heart, then the church, likewise, must
seek to exercise a pragmatic, realistic allowance for divorce to occur that enables release from an unbearable marriage.
Lord Hailsham’s Memoirs emphasises this position:
“I continue to think of marriage as…. a life-long obligation of mutual fidelity. But the fact is that
marriages do break down, sometimes from the fault of one only of the parties, sometimes of both,
occasionally as the result of circumstances outwith the control of either. In such cases, I believe that
to impose an obligation of life-long celibacy on either or both of the parties terminable only on what
has become an irrelevant duration of the other’s life is in the interest neither of public nor private
morality, nor indeed of religious observance.” xxxiv
5.2.8 This position is echoed by David Instone-Brewer who comments that “too many generations of husbands and
wives have been forced to remain with their abusing or neglectful partners and have not been allowed to divorce even
after suffering repeated unfaithfulness.” xxxv Both Instone-Brewer and Lord Hailsham would appear to reflect the
consequences of divine accommodation in the practical outworking of an irrevocable breakdown in marriage, seeking to
address the matter of how to make the unavoidable consequences of a broken marriage more tolerable to parties and
children and at the same time protect public interest in maintaining the permanence of the marriage bond.
5.2.9 And it is that latter aspect that must be emphasised within the parameters of accommodation. The permitting of
divorce in fact must be seen within the greater good of maintaining the primacy of the marriage union. Divorce will be
permitted under the aegis of accommodating to the sinfulness of the human heart but divorce, at the same time, should be
avoided whenever possible. The highest ideal is the creation ordinance of marriage; permissive legislation allowing
divorce must never be confused with accepting divorce as of equal validity to marriage.
5.3.1 Adultery and Divorce in Calvin’s Geneva, 1541-1564 The extent to which Calvin adopted
accommodation in the work of the Consistory of Geneva when dealing with matters of divorce can be gauged by
examining contemporary records extant for the period 1541-1564 when Calvin was based in Geneva. While there is no
direct evidence of any overt mention of accommodation per se in Calvin’s involvement in the various cases he was
concerned with, nevertheless there is sufficient evidence that he did practice the principles behind accommodation,
namely the accommodating to human sinfulness that permitted divorce whilst not approving of it.
5.3.2 The Consistory was an organisation of elders and pastors whose purpose was to control the behaviour of the
citizens of Geneva. Its chairman was Calvin himself unless he was bringing a case to the Consistory, as we shall see
below. While the Consistory had no executive power it acted as an investigating body, examining cases brought to it and
preparing a final report for the secular government’s ‘Small Council’ to pass judgement on.
5.3.3 In Calvin’s time in Geneva only 26 divorces were granted for adultery. Nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence
contained in the (often illegible) minutes of the Consistory records to gauge Calvin’s position regarding adultery and
divorce. One such case involved his brother Antoine. Antoine was married to Anne Le Fert. Twice, in fact, Antoine filed
for divorce on the grounds of his wife’s alleged adultery, first in 1548 and then in 1557. The 1548 case was dismissed,

there being insufficient grounds for concluding adultery, but Antoine and Anne were ordered to go through a
reconciliation ceremony. The second case did end in divorce. What is interesting is that John Calvin was involved in both
cases as a joint pursuer of divorce for Antoine. Without going into the details of the allegations, it is clear that Calvin was
fully supportive of his brother receiving a divorce because of his wife’s alleged (and in the second case, proven) adultery.
Furthermore, on the basis of his divorce, Antoine was permitted to remarry.
5.3.4 Calvin’s support of his brother Antoine and his subsequent granting of divorce on other occasions appears to
have stemmed from a pragmatic response to the moral calamity of adultery: permitting divorce without in any way
questioning the inviolability of marriage. As Roger Kingdon notes of Calvin and the members of the Consistory, “they
felt that marriage was a holy state in which almost all people should live. They felt that this holy state was destroyed by
the sexual betrayal involved in adultery or the wilful disruption of marital life caused by desertion. They were
accordingly prepared to recommend that a marriage compromised by either be dissolved.” xxxvi This observation, coupled
with Calvin’s own actions in and towards the Consistory, seems to concur with Calvin’s written attestation of God
accommodating himself to the sinfulness of the human heart in permitting though not approving of divorce as a
pragmatic response to the callousness of the human heart.
5.3.5 Certainly the general observation regarding the Protestant Reformers can be applied to Calvin in particular,
namely that it was only with the Protestant Reformation in Europe that divorce became legally possible. This is the more
pertinent in that it was the Consistory in Geneva that was at the forefront in pressing for the secular authorities (which
were often more reluctant to grant divorces than the clergy) to enact legislation permitting divorce. That Calvin was the
leading figure in the Geneva Consistory in its early years would suggest that Calvin did practise the principles outlined in
his ‘doctrine’ of accommodation.
5.4.1 To what extent did ‘accommodation’ influence later Reformed thinking? When we examine later
Reformed thinking on accommodation we can detect a drift away from what we might call the orthodoxy of Calvin to the
liberal theology of the Enlightenment. This can be observed during key periods of teaching at the Academy at Geneva
(founded by Calvin in 1559) chiefly in the works of father and son professors of theology - Francis Turretin (1623 -1687)
and, more particularly, Jean Alphonse Turretin (1671-1737).
5.4.2 While in the work of Francis Turretin, there was no substantive change from that of Calvin in terms of his
understanding of accommodation, when we analyse the position of his son Jean Alphonse Turretin on accommodation
and Scripture we discover a significant development towards enlightened rationalism with Scripture placed below reason
in determining truth.
5.4.3 Jean Alphonse accepted, with Calvin, the view that God accommodated his revelation to the mental capacity of
mankind. However, Jean Alphonse argued that such revelation could only be accepted as historic truth if it accorded with
what any reasonable individual could accept. Thus historic accuracy was only considered if verified by eyewitness
accounts and fulfilled prophecy. For example the accounts of creation, the Tower of Babel and the Flood narrative were
considered a form of revelation inferior to the rest of the Old Testament because they could not be verified by eyewitness
accounts. Reason rather than the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was considered the determining factor in interpreting early
Genesis. According to Jean Alphonse, God accommodated to the limited state of the Hebrew people in transmitting these
accounts in order to teach moral lessons rather than historic truth.
5.4.4 Moreover, Jean Alphonse argued that God holds individuals responsible for knowledge of the truth only in
accordance with the mental capacity of the individual. If God accords less light to a people then fewer essentials are
necessary for salvation. Notwithstanding, Jean Alphonse did attempt to protect the fundamental beliefs concerning
salvation through Jesus Christ alone but adopted a rationalistic defence of the Christian faith against the proponents of
deism and atheism. Scripture was still deemed valid for the spiritual good of mankind but where rational critique
superseded historic veracity by reason alone, Jean Alphonse would argue that such revelation was accommodated to the
limited level of the people and only provided a moral dimension.
5.5.1 Critique To what extent can we extend accommodation to human laws and customs which blatantly
contradict Scripture? From the above, admittedly brief, historical survey above we might suggest that the use of
accommodation to human laws and customs that blatantly contradict Scripture is fraught with difficulty. The propensity
to use accommodation as a lever to explain away aspects of biblical truth which reason alone does not verify, would
suggest that accommodation could likewise be used to justify laws which Scripture does not sanction. For example,
accommodation might be used to justify euthanasia on the basis that it is reasonable to end a life from a subjective
perspective based on rational criteria devoid of any Scriptural teaching on the sanctity of life.
5.5.2 Indeed, the use of accommodation as a tool to lessen the absolute nature of truth for a pragmatic, utilitarian
approach to Scripture could be used to adopt a pragmatic, utilitarian approach to justifying much that is in fact contrary

to biblical truth. The whole moral law could likewise be categorised as a relic of a primitive, pre-scientific society with
the developments of socio-economic and cultural advancement re-shaping a moral code according to the spirit of the age.
To extend accommodation, then, to human laws and customs which blatantly contradict God’s moral law runs the risk of
relativising truth and making subjective reasoning of more value that Scriptural truth.
5.5.3 In spite of this, we do believe that the concept of accommodation is a helpful one when applied to divorce in
two regards. First, it illustrates the struggles which theologians have had with what Instone-Brewer believes is the
Church’s misunderstanding of Scripture on this issue from the earliest times. Second, it shows that the concession of
divorce is Biblical.
6.1.1 Dr David Instone-Brewer Instone-Brewer’s approach to interpreting the teaching of the Bible on
divorce is very much that of understanding the whole matter in its historical context, asking how the original
hearers/readers would have understood what is recorded in the texts. He draws on his study of Rabbinic literature for
this. xxxvii He writes:
“Suddenly realising how a 1st century Jew would have understood these texts wasn’t due to a blinding
flash of inspiration, but was the result of three years of hard work for my PhD which suddenly came
together: three years of reading huge sections of Rabbinic literature, digging into the Mishnah, Tosephta
Talmud, Philo and the Dead Sea scrolls; analysing the texts – especially to see how they interpreted the
Old Testament – and comparing my findings with medieval and modern scholars. At the end of all this I
could think and interpret like the ancient Rabbis themselves and I was able to unpack the highly
abbreviated accounts of their debates.
“When I read the words of Jesus and Paul, I found details which would have been recognised by a
contemporary Rabbi, but which are meaningless to most modern readers. Both Jesus and Paul used the
language and terminology used by the Rabbis – especially when speaking about divorce, which was a hot
topic of debate at the time. I suppose it’s not surprising that they did so because Jesus was, after all,
answering questions which were being posed by Pharisaic Rabbis, and Paul said that he had been trained
under Gamaliel, who was a foremost Rabbi of the time.” xxxviii
6.1.2 Difficulty Instone-Brewer’s main argument is that the Christian Church, in all its branches, has been
guilty of seriously misunderstanding the core New Testament texts dealing with marriage and divorce. The reason for
this misunderstanding lies in an inadequate knowledge of the social and religious milieu in which these texts were first
uttered and then recorded. Indeed, there is still a wealth of untranslated material which may shed further light on these
issues. In any case, on the basis of the wealth of material already unearthed and translated towards the end of last century,
he is calling for a major review of the church’s teaching and practice in the area of divorce and remarriage.
6.1.3 This kind of argument seems on the face of it implausible for at least two reasons: Firstly, the notion that the
whole Christian communion has been in error on some points – and that for the first two thousand years of her existence
– is hard to take. The possibility that all of the Church has been mistaken on these points all of the time, to the misery of
countless people, raises very difficult questions. However, it should be said that, as Reformed Christians, we believe that
the bulk of the church was wrong on the question of justification for the best part of a thousand years.
6.1.4 Secondly, the notion that a significant Bible teaching is likely to be misinterpreted without external evidence sits
uncomfortably alongside the perspicuity of Scripture. Of course, it is one thing to obtain additional light by way of
corroboration or confirmation from external sources. But it is quite another to say that, with the Bible in your hands, you
are likely to err in the absence of such sources – which is what Instone-Brewer appears to be saying and which would,
naturally, explain why the whole Church has got it so badly wrong.
6.1.5 However, the issue is not that simple and that, again, for two reasons: Firstly, there is a long-standing
impression abroad in the church, probably throughout all its branches, that there is something elusive about the
marriage/divorce doctrine as it appears on the face of the New Testament – a sense of something being missing
somewhere. The reason for this lies in the sheer difficulty experienced in reconciling certain passages of Scripture.
Undoubtedly, most Old Testament passages are plain and, apart from the phenomenon of polygamy, they conform to our
classic understanding of marriage – particularly in respect of the permanence of the marriage union and the abhorrence of
divorce – but there are two passages which provide a difficulty.
6.1.6 In Deuteronomy 24:1ff, which deals with the famous ‘bill of divorcement’, one of the areas of difficulty has to
do with the meaning of ‘uncleanness’. It seems strange to argue, as many traditionally have done, that this ‘uncleanness’
– which provides a valid ground for divorce – is a reference to adultery, when it is well known that the punishment for

adultery was not divorce but death. Therefore, on the face of it, there seems to be a possibility here that something short
of adultery is given as a valid ground of divorce.
6.1.7 In Exodus 21:9-10, permission is given to a woman to leave a marriage on the ground that food, clothing and
conjugal rights are being denied to her. Although the wife spoken of here appears to be a slave, she is still a married slave
– or, ‘concubine’ – and it remains the case, therefore, that in this situation also, something short of adultery is given as a
valid ground of divorce.
6.1.8 These two passages, both of great importance for Instone-Brewer, indicate that the issue is not as
straightforward as it seems in terms of the interpretation of the Biblical data itself.
6.1.9 Secondly, and in relation to all that, it would go a long way to mitigating the difficulty in accepting the new
position, if the missing interpretive key were to be found within the pages of Scripture itself, as opposed to within extrabiblical
sources. Instone-Brewer’s claim is that extra-biblical source material forces us to look at the evidence in a new
light and re-interpret it accordingly. What is much more interesting is whether extra-biblical material provides an impetus
towards a rethink of the evidence in the old light of the Scripture itself, and whether a simple re-examination of the
Biblical material yields unexpected results. In this connection, it is important to remember that the Scripture is to be
taken as a whole and systematised. In attaining to a clear view of doctrine, it is never enough to look at the explicitness
of, say, Mark, without noting the subtle qualification of Matthew. The interpretive key is to be found in the principle of
comparing Scripture with Scripture, and when we do that in this case, we find that the traditional positions on divorce do
not stand up. In comparison, Instone-Brewer’s position has the great advantages of doing justice to all the passages of
Scripture on the subject and holding together both Old and New Testaments.
6.2.1 The argument Instone-Brewer’s contention is that the question Jesus was asked about divorce in Matthew
19:3 was not “Is it right for a man to divorce his wife?” but “Is it right for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” In
this, the Pharisees were “testing him.” The Jews knew that Moses commanded divorce along with a certificate of divorce
according to Deuteronomy 24:1 (Matthew19:7). Jesus, in His reply in Matthew 19:8, corrected them by saying that
Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of men’s hearts. However, that had not been God’s intention from the
beginning. Since that was the situation, it would have been nonsensical to ask Jesus if a man could divorce his wife full
stop. That wasn’t in contention. It was the grounds on which he could do it.
6.2.2 The ground in Deuteronomy 24 is “some indecency”. This Instone-Brewer says could be translated “a thing of
nakedness” or “a cause of sexual immorality”. xxxix It was the ground on which a man could divorce his wife, according to
Deuteronomy 24, that was in contention. One rabbinical school followed Shammai, who held that “a cause of sexual
immorality” meant “sexual immorality” and nothing else. The other school followed Hillel who asked the question:
‘Why did Moses use the phrase “cause of sexual immorality” when he could simply have said “sexual immorality”?’
Hillel reasoned that the seemingly superfluous word “cause” must refer to another, different, ground for divorce and
since this other ground is simply called a “cause”, he concluded that it meant “Any Cause”. xl
6.2.3 Instone-Brewer also says that there were three other grounds for divorce about which there was no dispute.
These are found in Exodus 21:7-11. They are the provision of food, clothing and conjugal rights. The latter would
include love and tenderness and not simply sex. He says, “…adultery is not the only sin that can end a marriage. Many
marriages are ended by neglect or abuse... why is adultery a more valid reason for divorce than cruelty? Why wouldn’t
God allow divorce in these situations (cruelty, abuse, neglect)? And why wouldn’t the victim be allowed, at the very least,
the choice of being able to leave such a marriage? In fact the Bible does have a law which addresses this situation.
Exodus 21:10-11 is a text which is usually forgotten, but it provides precisely what is needed because it allows the victim
of abuse or neglect to be freed from the marriage”. xli
6.2.4 The slave wife was entitled, if her husband took another wife and withheld from her food, clothing and conjugal
rights, to leave the marriage with no penalty. The Rabbis derived a principle from this which they said applied to all
marriages. “They reasoned that if a slave wife had the right to divorce a husband who neglected to supply food, clothing
and conjugal love, then a free wife would certainly also have this right. And they argued that if one of two wives had this
right, then so did an only wife. Furthermore, if a wife had these rights, then a husband was also entitled to the same right
to divorce a wife who neglected him. The Biblical principle which is established, therefore, is the right of someone to
divorce their partner if they neglect their vow to give you food, clothing or conjugal love.” xlii (This would be an example
of deducing matters from Scripture by good and necessary consequence.)
6.2.5 Instone-Brewer goes on to say that the four grounds for divorce corresponded to the vows couples took in
marrying. “They promised to feed, clothe, exchange conjugal love and be faithful to each other. The man agreed to
provide food and cloth, and the woman agreed to cook and sew, and they both agreed to share conjugal love and be
faithful.” xliii

6.2.6 He adds, “Abusive situations were covered by these laws because physical and emotional abuse are extreme
forms of neglecting material support or physical affection”. xliv
6.2.7 The discussion about “any cause” as opposed to “for sexual immorality only” dated from farther back, but was
still live in Jesus’ day even although most divorces were on the grounds of “any cause”, which is why His opponents
asked the question. They were trying to show him in a bad light as too narrow. However, as time passed, the Shammaite
view faded and, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and the dispersal of the Jews, only the Hillelite view
survived. It was this Judaism that the early church knew.
6.2.8 Jesus was never asked, so far as we know, about the other three grounds of divorce. The reason would be that
these were never in contention. Given by God through Moses, they continued. It was the “any cause” divorce around
which debate centred. Thus, there were these four grounds for divorce accepted by all Jews as Scriptural. xlv
6.2.9 There is a difference between gospel writers as to the question Jesus was asked. Mark (10:1-12) gives the
impression that the question was about divorce per se – the Pharisees “began to question him whether it was lawful for a
man to divorce a wife”. (The wording of Deuteronomy 24 makes the husband the one who divorces, whereas a wife
could do so on the other three grounds). Jesus’ response to his disciples about this was that any man who divorced his
wife and married another woman was committing adultery against his wife, and the same went for a wife. Therefore, it
looked as if when people did divorce, they could not remarry.
6.2.10 Mark wrote his gospel earlier than the others. At that time people would still be familiar with the debate over
“for any cause” and they would automatically add “for any cause” to the question, “Can a man divorce his wife?” Jesus’
reply would then mean that “any cause” would not be a lawful ground for divorce.
6.2.11 However, by the time Matthew wrote, the “any cause” divorce was the order of the day so he had to add “for
any cause” to show what exactly Jesus was being asked. Jesus’ reply was that, in the context of the dispute, sexual
immorality/adultery was the only lawful ground.
6.2.12 In answering his questioners, Jesus made it very clear that the focus of all should be on maintaining the marriage
bond. When two become one in marriage this is following God’s plan for the human race and no one should separate
what he has joined. However, it is not impossible to separate what God has joined. Whichever party to the marriage
breaks the marriage vows is guilty of separating/breaking up the marriage. Divorce by the “innocent” party is simply
legally recognising what has already been done.
6.2.13 By speaking of the hardness of men’s hearts as the reason for God permitting divorce, Jesus was meaning
persistent, unrepentant breaking of the marriage vows. The example in this was God. When unfaithful Israel prostituted
herself with the gods of the nations and wouldn’t listen to the entreaties of Yahweh her Husband, He wrote a bill of
divorce and put her away (Jeremiah 3, especially verse 8). Following God’s pattern, forgiving and seeking to save the
marriage would be the way until persistent breaking of the marriage vows made this impossible.
6.2.14 To come back to the overall picture, if this was the way the Jews of Jesus’ day looked at the matter, why has the
Christian church lost sight of the Exodus 21 element? Instone-Brewer says that the destruction of Jerusalem changed the
whole world of Judaism and cut off Christianity from its Jewish roots. Only Hillelite rabbis survived and “any cause”
divorce was simply called divorce. As above, it was this Judaism which the early church knew. This explains why the 2 nd
century Christian church had a partly different view on divorce and remarriage to that of Jesus, the apostles and the early
church. xlvi
6.2.15 Instone-Brewer’s explanation is that language changes and former usages become forgotten or misunderstood.
He gives various examples, including how in youth slang “wicked” has changed from meaning something evil, to
something good. xlvii Anyone who wasn’t aware of the meaning “wicked” had in the past would understand it only in
today’s terms. In the same way, Matthew’s “is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” was (mis)understood as “is
divorce ever lawful?” not as a question about who was right, Hillel or Shammai.
6.2.16 This is why, in seeking to understand Scripture, we need to know how it would be understood by people of the
time and, for that, we need to understand their culture and circumstances, and this is what the Church Fathers of the
second century did not understand. We have so much more information and background evidence today and so can better
understand the situation.
6.2.17 Instone-Brewer also says that “…the 2nd century Roman world was dominated by corrupt and degenerate
sexual practice... sexual immorality was all-pervasive ... the sexual act was despised and feared by the church as a
source of corruption and spiritual disease and the church ended up being suspicious of conjugal relations within
marriage” As for remarriage after the death of a spouse, “…if a widow or widower remarried it was regarded as

evidence of lasciviousness because they had done their sexual duty by being married before… the church gradually
elevated celibacy higher and higher until, by 9th century, the Roman church had decided that priests must be unmarried,
that celibacy within marriage was a pious attitude, and that sexual relations without the goal of having children were
sinful. This trend, which started in the 2nd century, was largely based on the misunderstanding that both Jesus and Paul
taught that virginity was superior to the married state and that remarriage was always impious and often sinful.” xlviii
6.2.18 In addition, Instone-Brewer argues that it is right to apply the principles behind God’s command in Old
Testament to New Testament situations. This would mean that divorce is lawful for Christians where there is physical or
mental cruelty, the failure to love and cherish (including normal sexual relations) and the failure to provide sufficiently.
6.2.19 With regard to marriage after divorce, Instone-Brewer says that the certificate of divorce among the Jews always
declared that the divorced person was free to marry. In New Testament times, remarriage after divorce was the norm in
Roman society across the empire. This was without ceremony. A person either left the home or was ejected from it. They
were now divorced and free to remarry. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-15, gives us the example of the unbelieving partner to
a marriage leaving. That was divorce Roman style. The Christian partner was now free to remarry but “only in the Lord.”
xlix
6.3.1 Instone-Brewer’s position Instone-Brewer argues that the marriage contract (a term which he prefers to
use rather than covenant) of the Old Testament shares the same characteristics as marriage contracts in the surrounding
Ancient Near Eastern cultures. In these contracts, there are clearly defined rewards for entering into marriage and clearly
defined penalties for failing to keep its obligations. Instone-Brewer argues that the Old Testament information on
marriage is rather scanty, simply because the general situation regarding marriage was well understood—indeed, he
argues, the only time specific reference is made to marriage is when legislation is being enacted which is different in
some respect to that prevailing in the surrounding culture. Invariably, this legislation grants greater rights to the woman
within marriage and, inevitably, greater rights to her on its dissolution.
6.3.2 For example, according to Instone-Brewer, the right of a woman to a divorce – and to a subsequent remarriage
— is a right granted by Mosaic law but denied in the surrounding cultures. This right is plainly stated in the controverted
passage in Deuteronomy 24. The main purpose of this passage has been understood to lie in forbidding remarriage to a
former spouse – usually for dowry reasons – but Instone-Brewer argues that the right of divorce and remarriage is, itself,
enshrined in the passage and ought not to be overlooked. Furthermore, the right to remarry is fundamental to the issuing
of the certificate: the certificate is a declaration of the woman’s right to marry whoever she wishes. If a husband was not
willing to issue the certificate, and if the woman’s ground was valid, he could be compelled by the authorities to do so.
6.3.3 In keeping with other cultures, however, Instone-Brewer argues that both parties, within an Israelite marriage,
had legitimate ground for divorce in the case of emotional or physical neglect. The key passage here is the one already
referred to, found in Exodus 21:7-11 – particularly verse 11 – which appears to teach that a wife is free to leave her
husband if he fails to provide ‘food, clothing and marriage rights’.
6.3.4 The significance of these passages – particularly the latter – is that they were both recognised as constituting
valid grounds for divorce by the Rabbinic School of Shammai, who were – unlike the opposing school of Hillel –
opposed to a “for any cause” divorce. The school of Hillel, which became by far the majority Rabbinic school by the
time of Christ, had come to interpret Deuteronomy 24:1ff in a particularly lax way: for them, it was allowable to divorce
for ‘any cause’ or ‘any matter’. For the school of Shammai, the divorce was only allowable in the case of a ‘matter of
indecency’ (lit. nakedness of a matter/thing) being found in the wife. This was understood by them much as it has been
traditionally by the Christian church – if not a reference to adultery, then at least something approximating to it. In this
way, it was held by the school of Shammai that, in the context of Deuteronomy 24, divorce was lawful on the basis of
‘indecency’ – but this was not considered to be in any way inconsistent with there being other lawful grounds for
divorce.
6.3.5 From this, Instone-Brewer argues that the best way to understand Christ’s pronouncements regarding divorce is
to see them as a ruling on a contemporary debate between the two Rabbinic schools. In this debate, between those who
approved of divorce for ‘any cause’ and those who approved of it for ‘indecency of matter’, Christ upheld the latter and
pronounced accordingly. Therefore, to act on the basis of ‘any cause’ divorce would be spiritually invalid (even if not
illegal) and, in the event of the subsequent remarriage of either party, would involve adultery for all involved –
presumably on the ground that the original marriage was somehow still in force. According to Instone-Brewer, Christ
went further than the School of Shammai here, in that they tended to accept the rulings of Hillel-dominated courts even if
they did not agree with them. Instone-Brewer argues, however, that we should not assume that Christ disapproved of the
other Old Testament grounds for divorce. Rather, like the Rabbinic school with which he sided, he gave a ruling on the
verse in dispute without commenting on other related issues. In this way, and especially by considering Paul’s treatment

of sexual and emotional neglect and desertion (which is really a form of neglect) in 1 Corinthians 7, Instone-Brewer
concludes that the legitimate grounds for divorce are wider than they have traditionally been held to be and include
physical and emotional neglect as well as adultery and desertion.
6.3.6 Divorce on the grounds of Exodus 21 was not a matter in dispute, but was accepted by all Jews without
exception, whereas other matters were not accepted by all. Therefore, the issue doesn’t come into the gospels.
6.3.7 Paul accepted this as still valid: “Paul referred to the Jewish law when he taught Christian sexual morals to the
Corinthians. Perhaps he did this because many of the Christians in Corinth came from a Jewish background, but it is
more probable that he did it because he based all his moral teachings in the Old Testament. Although many
commentators have missed the reference to Exodus 21:10-11 in this passage, others have noticed it… [T]he rabbis found
three grounds for divorce in this passage, based on the three obligations of providing love, food and clothing. They
divided these into two groups: emotional obligations and material obligations. He has dealt with the emotional
obligations in these verses (1 Corinthians 7:1-7.) In verses 32-35, Paul deals with the material obligations.” l
“Paul described the material obligations, like the emotional obligations, in terms of exact equality of men and women.
This equality is emphasised almost to the point of repetitiveness. The rabbis also taught that the obligation of material
provision applied to both men and women, even although it only applied to the man in the original legislation of Exodus
21:10-11. Presumably they felt that if a slave wife had a right to food and clothes, then so did the free wife, and so did a
man. As seen in chapter five, the rabbis carefully defined both the amount of food and clothing the husband had to
provide, and the tasks that the wife had to perform in preparing the meals and clothes. Paul did not speak in such
legalistic terms. He referred to the husband and wife who wished to ‘please’ each other. He said nothing negative about
these material concerns, even though they are “of the world”. This is an obligation within marriage that he recognised
in the Law.” li
6.3.8 The only other ground for divorce was adultery (sexual sin) as Jesus made clear to those who asked Him, “Is it
lawful for a man to divorce his wife ‘for any cause’?”
6.3.9 Instone-Brewer makes it clear that Jesus and Paul taught that divorce was not obligatory. Forgiveness and
reconciliation were to be tried first. However, in the face of persistent breach of the marriage contract due to hardness of
heart, the wronged spouse could divorce and remarry.
6.3.10 In the context of divorce on the grounds of adultery, Jesus taught that remarriage was lawful. Paul, speaking on
the basis of Exodus 21:10-11, in v.15 of 1 Corinthians 7, “quotes from a standard Jewish divorce certificate ..... You are
free to marry any Jewish man you wish” adapting it to the Christian context – “she is free to be married to whom she
wishes; only in the Lord.” lii
6.4.1 Assessment How far should we accept Instone-Brewer’s argument and how would this relate to the
Westminster Confession of Faith’s teaching on divorce? If his argument is Biblical which it appears to be, we should
accept it. To make it clear to others is perhaps more difficult. For instance, it is notoriously difficult to make the
seemingly abrupt, unambiguous pronouncements of Christ on this matter mean anything other than adultery alone being
the only lawful ground of divorce. And, on the basis of these words alone, the possibility of there being other grounds is
often dismissed out of hand. However, it is strangely overlooked in such reasoning that, in subscribing to the Confession
of Faith, we already accept another ground for divorce—desertion. The consequences of this are really quite far-reaching.
Unless we suppose additional apostolic revelation on this issue which effectively overtakes the word of Christ – which is
problematic – we must acknowledge that adultery is, in fact, not the only ground on which divorce can be granted. In
other words, we already acknowledge, essentially, the position which Instone-Brewer is advancing—that Christ’s words
are somehow limited in application by the context in which he spoke them.
6.4.2 The Westminster Confession of Faith gives adultery and desertion as the only two Biblical grounds for divorce
(24.6). But neglect and abuse – not looking after a spouse’s material and emotional needs properly – is an abandonment
of the promises involved in marriage, a rejection of the other. In essence it is desertion. This could fit within the terms of
the Confession.
6.4.3 It was, of course, possible that good men of the past could miss the significance of the Biblical passages. Even
the commentator Matthew Henry, in commenting on Exodus 21 said, “The laws recorded in this chapter relate to the fifth
and sixth commandments; and though they are not accommodated to our constitution, especially in point of servitude,
nor are the penalties annexed binding on us, yet they are of great use for the explanation of the moral law, and the rules
of natural justice.” The only lesson he draws from verses 7-11 is the general point: “Thus did God provide for the
comfort and reputation of the daughters of Israel, and has taught husbands to give honour to their wives (be their

extraction ever so mean) as to the weaker vessels, (1 Peter 3:7).” liii He seems to be saying, “This is what the Bible says
and is part of the moral law of God, the practice is just and according to natural law, but we have different ideas and
customs, so we ignore the specifics of Exodus 21”. This is not a valid position for those who take the Bible seriously.
Instone-Brewer’s position does much more justice to passages like this which the church has found difficult, and the
Panel recommends his position to the careful consideration of the church.
6.4.4 Of course, Instone-Brewer’s position has come in for strong criticism from some quarters, notably from John
Piper. liv In an article on his website, he is scathing in his rejection of Instone-Brewer’s position, but Piper’s position that
the New Testament does not allow divorce for any reason is highly unconvincing and does not do justice to the apparent
tensions between the Biblical passages. In addition, in his What Jesus Demands from the World, lv in dealing with divorce,
he only mentions the word “desertion” once and does not even consider the 1 Corinthians 7 passage on which the
Westminster Confession position is based. Also, he does not seem to deal with a world where wives and children are
cruelly beaten, husbands are deserted, and persistent unfaithfulness wrecks trust. By contrast, Instone-Brewer’s position
is thoroughly researched, much more comprehensive, gives due weight to the various Biblical passages that deal with the
subject, and furthermore, moves in the real world of marital breakdown.
6.5.1 Application It is quite clear from Scripture that marriage is regarded as sacred and is intended to be
lifelong. The key passage appears first in Genesis 2, with regard to the first married couple: “A man shall leave his father
and mother, be united to his wife and they will become one flesh” (v.24). It is quoted by Jesus in Matthew 19, where he
adds, “Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not separate” (v.6). It is quoted again by the Apostle Paul in
Ephesians 5:31, where he is using the marriage bond of love as an illustration of the relationship between Christ and his
church. If husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church, that love is to be permanent.
6.5.2 However, we have to face the reality (and the Bible faces the reality) that married love between sinful human
beings is sometimes not permanent. Because of the hardness of human hearts, the marriage bond is destroyed by
adultery, desertion, neglect or abuse.
6.5.3 In such cases the Bible allows for divorce. However, it must be recognised that although it may be a remedy for
an intolerable situation, it is not a cure. Once the marriage bond is broken, nothing can put everything back together
again. This is particularly true where there are children involved. God’s design is that children are brought up in the
stable, loving and safe environment of their parents’ marriage. While it is true that through death children may be
brought up by a single parent or parent and step-parent, that situation is different, because their other parent is not still
around. Inevitably, in divorce children are caught up in the tensions, the arguments and the divisions, not only of their
parents, but of the wider community of family and friends. It is not impossible that, by the grace of God, children may
not only survive such a situation, but develop normally, but the odds are stacked against them.
6.5.4 But this is not only true with regard to the children. Separation and divorce tear at the very heart of husband and
wife. They are hurt at the most vulnerable place of all — the place of love and compassion and tenderness. God has
declared that they are one. They cannot simply be separated back into the same two individuals they were before.
6.5.5 Nevertheless, it must be recognised that the Bible does allow for the remedy of divorce and remarriage, and it
appears from Instone-Brewer’s study in particular that the Bible allows for divorce not only in the cases of adultery and
desertion, but also in the cases of neglect and abuse. It should be stressed that these have to be severe and persistent and
that efforts to rectify the situation have failed repeatedly. And it must also be stressed that divorce is not mandatory, even
in the case of adultery. Hosea was commanded to redeem his adulterous wife as an illustration of the forgiving grace of
God for a spiritually adulterous Israel. However, it is true that God did finally “divorce” the apostate northern kingdom
of Israel, thus illustrating that there can come the time when there is no remedy but divorce (Jeremiah 3:8).
6.5.6 It should also be emphasised that there is no indication in Scripture that there is any instance where divorce is
permitted, but not remarriage. Both Old Testament and New make it clear that where divorce is permitted, remarriage is
also permitted (Exodus 21:11, 1 Corinthians 7:15). “Free” and “not bound” mean “free to marry”. To argue otherwise,
apart from ignoring the Biblical evidence, would condemn the innocent divorced party in particular to a life of loneliness,
misery and poverty (especially true in the ancient world where there was no statutory provision for the impoverished).
This surely is contrary to the justice as well as the compassion of God.
6.5.7 What about the “guilty party” in a divorce? The whole concept of “guilty party” is no longer recognised in civil
law, as the only ground for divorce now is “the irretrievable breakdown of marriage”. However, in the eyes of God, the
person who commits adultery or deserts or neglects or abuses their spouse is guilty. But is the guilty party free to
remarry? It is difficult to see why not. If a true Biblical divorce is granted, then the marriage is ended and both partners
are free to remarry. However, if a Christian marriage is being sought by the person responsible for breaking the original

marriage, there should be genuine evidence of repentance. We must remember that the purpose of church discipline is
pastoral and restorative rather than legalistic and punitive.
7.1 Present civil legislation Divorce in Scotland is governed by the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976 as
subsequently amended (especially by the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006). lvi There is only one ground for divorce
recognised – “the irretrievable breakdown of marriage”. Certain evidence can be used to prove irretrievable breakdown:
adultery
behaviour such that one spouse cannot reasonably be expected to cohabit with the other (often referred to as
“unreasonable behaviour”)
non-cohabitation for one year where the defending spouse consents to the divorce
non-cohabitation for two years
“Gender reassignment” can also be a reason for divorce
7.2 It is clear that this diverges from the Biblical position on divorce in several ways. Primarily it differs in its
vagueness. Non-cohabitation is much vaguer than desertion (which since 2006 has no longer been recognised as an
evidence of irretrievable breakdown). “Unreasonable behaviour” is much less precise than failure to feed and clothe and
provide marital love. And “irretrievable breakdown” itself as a single ground for divorce is far more vague than making
adultery, desertion etc. grounds for divorce. In addition, the whole concept of “no fault” divorce which is intrinsic to the
legislation is very different from the biblical view.
8.1 Conclusion John Steinbeck in East of Eden says: “…underneath their topmost layers of frailty,
men…want to be loved. Indeed most of their vices are attempted short cuts to love. When a man comes to die, no matter
what his talents and influence and genius, if he dies unloved his life must be a failure to him and his dying a cold horror.”
8.2 For many, Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy is the greatest novel ever written. It is a story of love – the glory of
love and the tragedy of love. There are two main characters – Anna Karenina and Konstantin Levin. For Anna, love is
god; by contrast the atheist Levin eventually discovers God is love. Anna, in the name of love, leaves her husband and
son – her love is powerful and passionate, but ultimately fragile and self-centred, and leads in the end to her tragic
suicide. Levin, after a long struggle to understand the source of goodness and love, comes, through the words of an old
peasant, to believe in God.
8.3 Love is at the heart of what we are as human beings, because God made us in his own image, and God is love.
He also made us male and female and gave to us this amazing gift of marriage for the full expression of our human love.
The supreme honour paid to marriage is that it is used in the Bible as a parable of the love between Christ and his church.
But because marriage is so great, it has always, from the beginning, been a prime object of the devil’s attack. We see
abundant evidence of that today in under-age sex, teenage pregnancy, couples living together, clamour for same sex
marriage and divorce rates.
8.4 The Church should do all in its power to honour, strengthen and support marriage, as the God-given relationship
for the full expression of sexual love – through our regular preaching, teaching and pastoral work. However, this should
not prevent us from doing justice to what the Bible teaches about divorce. And here we have not just to deal with Calvin
or Instone-Brewer. Those who try to debunk their positions, have still to reckon with the position of the Westminster
Confession and the apparent inconsistencies between the Biblical passages on which that position is based.
8.5 The evil lies not in divorce itself, but in the sin that has broken the marriage. Divorce is given as a remedy
(partial, no doubt) for the breakdown of the relationship caused by human sin. We need to remember that Jesus said,
“Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). This stresses the evil of human beings
breaking their marriage covenant, but it does not preclude God himself making provision for when such evil occurs. The
provision he has made is divorce, but divorce must be in accordance with the principles God has given in his Word, not
based on the mere whims of human beings. Jesus set his face against “any cause” divorce.
8.6 As far as remarriage is concerned, we have found no Biblical reason to depart from the position of the
Confession of Faith which allows remarriage after Biblical divorce. lvii In cases where it is not clear if there were Biblical
grounds for divorce, the parties have been living apart for a considerable time and all attempts at reconciliation have
failed and perhaps they have even entered into another relationship, the marriage is now ended (there is now wilful
desertion with or without adultery), and, if they show repentance, they can legitimately marry someone else.
8.7 It must also be remembered that divorce is not inevitable when breakdown occurs. The gospel message of
reconciliation and forgiveness has a huge part to play as the church seeks to restore broken relationships.

Bibliography
Balserak, Jon, The God of Love and Weakness; Calvin’s Understanding of God's Accommodating Relationship with his
People in Westminster Theological Journal 62 (2000), 177-95
Balserak, Jon, The Accommodating Act Par Excellence? An Inquiry into the Incarnation and Calvin's Understanding of
Accommodation in The Scottish Journal of Theology 55/4 (2002), 379-394
Benin, Stephen, The Footprints of God, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1993
Brown, Paul E (ed.), Homosexuality: Christian Truth and Love, DayOne, 2007
Calvin, John, Calvin on Deuteronomy 24 in John Calvin Harmony of the Law, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/
Calvin, John, Calvin on Matthew 19 in John Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/
Cornes, Andrew, Divorce and Remarriage, Hodder 1993, repub. Mentor (CFP), 2002
Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/39
Edwards, Brian (ed.), Homosexuality: The Straight Agenda, Day One, 1998
Hailsham, Lord, A Sparrow’s Flight, Fontana, London, 1990
Harkins, Paul W., St John Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensible Nature of God C.U.A. Press, Washington, D.C., 1984
Instone-Brewer, David, Divorce and remarriage in the Church (DRC), Paternoster, 2003
Instone-Brewer, David, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible (DRB), Eerdmans, 2002
Kingdon, Robert, Adultery and Divorce in Calvin’s Geneva, Harvard University Press 1995
Klauber, Martin I. & Sunshine Glenn S., Jean-Alphonse Turrettini on Biblical Accommodation: Calvinist or Socinian?,
Calvin Theological Journal, vol. 25, n8 1 (April 1990)
MacDonald, Alex, Love Minus Zero, CFP, ps.60-93
Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/15
Marriage and Divorce, Free Church of Scotland Study Panel, 1988
Osborn, Eric, ‘Justin Martyr’, Mohr Tubingen, 1973
St Augustine: Literal Meaning of Genesis, by John Hammond Taylor, Paulist Press, 1984
Vasey, Michael, Strangers and Friends, Hodder, 1995
References
i “Love and Marriage”, lyrics by Sammy Cahn, music by Jimmy Van Heusen, published by Barton Music
Corporation (ASCAP).
ii http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/focus-on-families/2007/focus-on-families-summary-report.pdf, p.5
iii The Scotsman, 23 September 2011
iv See also http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/5757/ga11_specssrm.pdf, para.7(b) which
became the finding of the Church of Scotland Assembly
v http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-
stories/gay_marriage_a_danger_to_scotland_says_ex_snp_chief_1_1904143
vi Walter Trobisch, I Married You, IVP
vii C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves, Collins, 1963, p.93
viii C. S. Lewis, ibid. p.94
ix Edward J Young, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1949, p.327
x http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/15/contents
xi http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/registration/RM1-Leaflet.pdf
xii The Registration of Civil Partnerships, Same Sex Marriage, A Consultation, The Scottish Government, 2011, p.1
xiii http://www.cmf.org.uk/publications/content.asp?context=article&id=630, see also Peter Saunders, Just Genetics in
Homosexuality: Christian Truth and Love, ed. Paul E Brown, DayOne, 2007, p.43
xiv http://www.ladygaga.com/lyrics/default.aspx?tid=23592566
xv http://pjsaunders.blogspot.com/search/label/Sexuality
xvi The Journal of Homosexuality, Vol 28, numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 1995, republished under the title Sex, Cells, and Same-Sex
Desire: The Biology of Sexual Preference, quoted by Peter Saunders,
http://pjsaunders.blogspot.com/search/label/Sexuality
xvii http://pjsaunders.blogspot.com/search/label/Sexuality
xviii http://www.cmf.org.uk/publications/content.asp?context=article&id=630
xix Michael Vasey, Strangers and Friends, Hodder, 1995, p.126ff
xx Vasey, p.127
xxi Vasey, p.129ff

xxii David Wright, Sexuality and the Church, ed. Tony Higton, ABWON, 1987, p.41, and Homosexuals or Prostitutes?,
Vigiliae Christianae, 38 (1984), ps.123-53
xxiii Vasey, p.139
xxiv Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 1811. For the original record from the Consistory Court, 2 Hag Con 54, p.669, see
http://www.uniset.ca/other/ths/161ER665.html
xxv Andrew Cornes, Marriage and Divorce, ps.237-259
xxvi Tim Keller, The Prodigal God, Dutton, 2008, and Kenneth E Bailey, Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes, SPCK,
2008
xxvii Eric Osborn, ‘Justin Martyr’, Mohr Tubingen, 1973, page 157
xxviii Stephen Benin, The Footprints of God, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1993, p.13
xxix Stephen Benin, The Footprints of God, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1993, p.11
xxx All references refer to those in Paul W. Harkins, St John Chrysostom On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, C.U.A.
Press, Washington, D.C., 1984
xxxi St Augustine, Literal Meaning of Genesis, Bk 2, ch. 16, 1:69-71, by John Hammond Taylor, Paulist Press, 1984
xxxii Calvin on Deuteronomy 24 in John Calvin Harmony of the Law part 3
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom05.ii.iii.iv.xii.html
xxxiii Calvin on Matthew 19 in John Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels Volume 2,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/commentaries.i.html
xxxiv Lord Hailsham, ‘A Sparrow‘s Flight’, p. 206
xxxv David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible (DRB), p.314
xxxvi Robert Kingdon, Adultery and Divorce in Calvin’s Geneva, Harvard University Press 1995 p.177
xxxvii David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church (DRC), Intro IX
xxxviii DRC p.4 para. 3
xxxix DRC p.20 para. 2
xl DRC p.37. para.3
xli DRC p.20 paras. 3,4
xlii DRC p.21 paras. 3,4
xliii DRC p.22 para. 3
xliv DRC p.22 para. 4
xlv See whole section DRB pp.184-7
xlvi
DRC ch.12
xlvii
DRC p.111
xlviii
DRC p.121 second half
xlix
DRC p.82
l
DRB p.194, last para.
li
DRB p. 196, first para.
lii
DRC p.84, para.4
liii
Henry, M, (1996, c1991), Matthew Henry's commentary: On the whole Bible (electronic ed. of the complete and
unabridged edition), (Ex 21), Peabody: Hendrickson.
liv
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/tragically-widening-the-grounds-of-legitimate-divorce,
see also
lv
John Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World, http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bwjd/books_bwjd.pdf
lvi
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/39 and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2006/2/crossheading/divorce
lvii The Confession of Faith, 24.5,6