Nevertheless, when I read your CT article earlier this month, I read it in light of the background information that you had provided in your first book. So I did not struggle the way others might have if they were not familiar with your work. However, your subsequent CT article and your blog have filled in most of the gaps. To me, the background information connected with the Exodus 21 passage, as well as the passage itself, is difficult to dismiss, at least in my opinion.

I am currently teaching a class on Haggai and Malachi and I encourage my class to read your book Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, or at least significant portions of it, for our discussion of Malachi 2:16.

Let me personally thank you for the contribution you have made to my own biblical understanding of divorce and remarriage. In addition, thanks for providing this updated information that gives further clarification as you respond to various questions about this pertinent subject. I am certain that those who read my weblog will profit from you work.

I agree with you that Hugenberger’s work is seminal, and is a model of careful scholarship.

When I wrote the Christianity Today article, I struggled greatly with the word limit for such an important subject. There wasn’t room to define neglect, so I referred readers to my Divorce & Remarriage in the Church (the full text is at https://www.DivorceRemarriage.com)

The book points out that ‘neglect’ is an inadequate modern-day way of summarising the stipulations of ‘food, clothing and love’ in Ex.21.10f (as repeated in marriage contracts in Jesus’ day). It also details the way in which Jesus emphasises that a wronged partner should forgive and forgive and forgive and that turning to divorce as a remedy for persistant neglect is a last resort.

I’m sorry that I have caused confusion by not making this clear in the article itself. See my response to this and other issues here.

David Instone-Brewer