God Hates Divorce

[TonyLee]

edit again: I found this while doing a search on a topic, and replied before noticing that this forum is only for divorced or separated people, so deleted it within 2 or 3 minutes. However, it got quoted already.

 

[LinkH]

What do you do with this verse.....

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:


Jesus gave an answer to that quote in the verse that follows, and I will bold certain parts.



32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.




This is in the sermon on the mount. Early in the message, Jesus talks about His listeners' righteousness exceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees.



Yes, Moses said a man who put away his wife was to give her a writing of divorcement. But JESUS said that whoever put his wife....not that he was to give her a writing of divorcement... but that whoever put away his wife saving for the cause of fornication causes her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced causes her to commit adultery.


Jesus consistently gives a higher law throughout the chapter. The law says not to murder. Jesus taught against getting angry and calling your brother fool. The law allowed swearing. It said not to break your oaths. But Jesus said swear not at all. The law said an eye for an eye, but Jesus said turn the other cheek.



Jesus gives a higher law in this passage. When it comes to divorce, His standard is higher than the concession God made through Moses. In chapter 19, He shows that the basis for this can be found in Genesis.


It is interesting, today I got on FB to offer condolences to a friend who'd lost a love one whose phone wasn't picking up. An old college friend who'd converted to Orthodoxy FBed me and we talked about divorce in the EO church. He said many Americans had little concept of sacramental union anymore. Apparently, divorce is rare among them, and bishops handle such cases. Also, unmarried couples who 'shack up' are out of communion with them.

 

[LinkH]

TonyLee wrote

LinkH,

I just want to write that I fully understand what you are saying, and have no idea what is soooo hard about what you are asking. It is clear that the passage in Matthew is referring to putting away a wife WITH a certificate. I see that you ask the same questions over and over, but no one here will answer them but will reply only that they have shown plenty of evidence. I have seen no evidence. Will someone ever answer LinkH's question about the fornication clause that he has asked about several times already?

This reminds me of someone on another board several years ago claiming that some people are barred from being able to be saved before birth, and interpreting certain scriptures to say what it does not say. For example, the verse in Romans talking about whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved really means shalt have been saved. That is exactly what the person said. It was believed that God picks certain people, and saves them, then they realize it after the fact, and then believe on Him.

Also, the passage in Acts 10 referring to Cornelius getting saved really meant that Peter was sent to him to tell him that he had already been saved. It clearly says in Acts 11 that his being saved was in the future tense after being told to call for Peter. However, no amount of showing a poster this would sink in, and the passages did not mean what they say.

I think it may be that some people are sincere on some level, but are just unable to perceive. It could be a lack of desire to seriously read carefully, or just a desire to believe something that fits well with life circumstances. We can all be tempted to believe what is convenient.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

I think it may be that some people are sincere on some level, but are just unable to perceive. It could be a lack of desire to seriously read carefully, or just a desire to believe something that fits well with life circumstances. We can all be tempted to believe what is convenient.

Yes, it can be all of those things.

 

[mkgal1]

A point that I've been trying to make (and apparently failing to make) is that the bigger message in these verses is that the Pharisees (being experts in the law) weren't even recognizing that the Author of that law was standing right in front of them. I imagine that's because they had missed the Spirit behind the law (and that's what Christ was---I believe--- trying to point out to them). IOW......their version of the Law resembled nothing like what Christ had been teaching (genuine love, grace, and mercy).

 

[LinkH]

I think it may be that some people are sincere on some level, but are just unable to perceive. It could be a lack of desire to seriously read carefully, or just a desire to believe something that fits well with life circumstances. We can all be tempted to believe what is convenient.

Yes, it can be all of those things.

It is good that we agree. The Bible says to study to show yourself approved.

One simple way not to fall into this trap is to carefully read through a passage to consider whether what you have been taught is true. In this case, you might read through and follow the exact flow of what the passage says, and write out an interpretation based on what the website you read (e.g. DivorceHope) says about apoluo. You can share it on this forum. You could explain verse by verse what you think it means, and explain how 'except it be for fornication' can be interpreted given the way you see it.

Also memorizing scripture, Matthew 5, Matthew 19, to get it into your heart ('Thy word I have hid in mine heart that I might not sin against thee') and help with understanding the context, or even memorizing the whole book of Matthew would help. It sure helped me with my understanding of the issue, and also with my decision-making process for choosing a wife.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"God is not a man that He should lie" ... and ...
"all men are liars"
if
someone doesn't 'get' these 2, then it is most likely, as evidenced everywhere online and in town(your town, everyone, anyone) they will trust some man and never know what God says and means....

God is DELIGHTED TO TEACH HIS OWN CHILDREN THE WHOLE TRUTH. His Word is Written. It is so.

Originally Posted by LinkH http://www.christianforums.com/t7709685-11/#post62380250

"I think it may be that some people are sincere on some level, but are just unable to perceive. It could be a lack of desire to seriously read carefully, or just a desire to believe something that fits well with life circumstances. We can all be tempted to believe what is convenient."
​

and so it goes. people believe what's convenient, or what does not cost them everything, what their parents or pastor or a scholar tells them,

instead of what God says.
just
as it is written "there is a famine in the land of the 'hearing of the word of God' " .... lots of bibles, lots of studies, lots of denominations .... but a famine of the hearing of the word of God.

 

[Svt4Him]

"God is not a man that He should lie" ... and ...
"all men are liars"
if
someone doesn't 'get' these 2, then it is most likely, as evidenced everywhere online and in town(your town, everyone, anyone) they will trust some man and never know what God says and means....

God is DELIGHTED TO TEACH HIS OWN CHILDREN THE WHOLE TRUTH. His Word is Written. It is so.

Originally Posted by LinkH

"I think it may be that some people are sincere on some level, but are just unable to perceive. It could be a lack of desire to seriously read carefully, or just a desire to believe something that fits well with life circumstances. We can all be tempted to believe what is convenient."
​

and so it goes. people believe what's convenient, or what does not cost them everything, what their parents or pastor or a scholar tells them,

instead of what God says.
just
as it is written "there is a famine in the land of the 'hearing of the word of God' " .... lots of bibles, lots of studies, lots of denominations .... but a famine of the hearing of the word of God.

No idea if this is your intent, but the funniest thing about posts like this is those posting never think it applies to them, they think their beliefs are all based on God's word, not realizing that they are deceived in part as well. Weird eh?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

no, not weird. very often accurate, but usually no one recognizes it, including you. so, test everything. pray always about everything. maybe Yhwh will enlighten you. maybe not. His choice.

 

[Svt4Him]

no, not weird. very often accurate, but usually no one recognizes it, including you. so, test everything. pray always about everything. maybe Yhwh will enlighten you. maybe not. His choice.

And maybe you too will be enlightened, but maybe not. The funny thing though is I realize the arrogance in that statement, hopefully one day you do as well. And that is your choice.

 

[LinkH]

As one who seems to be nearing this eventuality, I am curious how others feel about this passage from Malachi 2:16 -

"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.

Two things to ponder:

1) There are numerous other things God hates. At least 43 or so according to this website (with Scripture references):

At Least 43 Things God Hates

Reading from the list and the associated Scriptures, no one is exempt from what God hates. Who hasn't at one time or another lied, been prideful, or been guilty of idolatry?


2) It is interesting (to me at least) that the Hebrew used in Malachi (shalach) is more used for "sending away" or "seperate" than for divorce. It is a different word (keriythuwth) than the "certificate of divorce" mentioned in Deuteronomy 24 and other places. In fact, Deut. 24:1 says to give her the certificate of divorce (keriythuwth) and then send her away (shalach).

It's almost as if God hates the sending away of the wife without giving her the certificate of divorce in Malachi 2:16, rather than the act of divorce itself.

Comments?

God hates the man sending his wife away. If he followed Moses, then he'd give her a certificate before he did it. He still sends away/puts away his wife. I doubt they'd divorce them on paper, but keep them around. They didn't have our court system and joint ownership of the home. They had marriage contracts which specified terms if a man put away his wife, at least in Jesus' day.

Jesus statement on divorce and adultery in Matthew 19 was discussing the legal divorce-- the case where a man would 'give her a writing of divorcement, and send her away.'

 

[Svt4Him]

God hates the man sending his wife away. If he followed Moses, then he'd give her a certificate before he did it. He still sends away/puts away his wife. I doubt they'd divorce them on paper, but keep them around. They didn't have our court system and joint ownership of the home. They had marriage contracts which specified terms if a man put away his wife, at least in Jesus' day.

Jesus statement on divorce and adultery in Matthew 19 was discussing the legal divorce-- the case where a man would 'give her a writing of divorcement, and send her away.'

As already been pointed out, no, he wasn't. And in fact, as has also been pointed out, Jewish women are still being put away without the writing of divorcement.

Quoted with permission:Total Health -- Divorce and Remarriage: The Clear and Simple Truth, Part Two -- Put Away

Now let us look at teachings that support the idea that “put away” was not equal to divorce, but resulted only in a separation. A.

Ezr 10:11 Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your
fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the
land, and from the strange wives.​

1. The word translated “separate” is:
[Heb. 914] badal(baw-dal')
a primitive root; to divide (in variation senses literally or figuratively, separate,
distinguish, differ, select, etc.):-- (make, put) difference, divide (asunder), (make)
separate (self, -ation), sever (out), X utterly. (Strong's)
2. There was no command to divorce those women, why?
a. They were not legal marriages.
b. The relationships were not pleasing to God and simply needed to be
ended by permanent separation.

B. What is significant about the observation that "put away", as used by Jesus,
amounts to separation?
1. The "exception clause", found in Matt 19:9 is made to be the core of the
teaching that so divides brethren on the divorce and remarriage issue.
a. It is asserted that one who is divorced cannot marry unless he did the
divorcing and did it because the spouse committed fornication.
b. That is not what the passage says.
2. Jesus said if one PUTS AWAY his wife and marries another he commits
adultery, unless the wife was put away BECAUSE OF FORNICATION.
a. This does not mean that the spouse committed fornication, which either
broke the marriage bond or allowed the "innocent" one to so do.
b. It simply had reference to the RELATIONSHIP - it was not a legal marriage.
1) If a man found that he had married someone who was already
married, or who was close kin (incest), he would not need to do anything
but "put away", which amounted to separation.
2) (New Jerusalem) But I say this to you, everyone who divorces his wife,
except for the case of an illicit marriage, makes her an adulteress; and
anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Mt 5:32).
[The translators of the above version failed to properly translate apoluo,
but properly translated or paraphrased the "exception clause" as "except
for the case of an illicit marriage."]
3. The only instances in the N.T. where action was required in a case involving a
marriage was where the marriage was not legal according to the Law, i.e.,
was an "illicit marriage".
a. One was Herod's marriage to his brother's wife (Mark 6:18; Lev 20:21)
b. The second was the man who had his father's wife (1Cor. 5. See Clark).

4. Illustrations:
a. Consider that some men (or women) just put their spouse out of the
house with the intention of being permanently separated, and do not bother
with a divorce.
1) It could be they did it because they had no intention of marrying another
because of indifference, or for various other reasons.
2) Also, some actually “divorce” but do not “put away” and the motive
may be to avoid paying taxes.
b. John and Shay marry. John finds another woman. John “puts away” Shay.
He says to her, “Take your stuff and get out of the house. You are
free from me. I’m marring another woman.”
1) What happens when he does marry this other woman? Obviously, he
commits adultery (Matt 19:9; Rom 7:1-4). Why would he be committing
adultery? It would be adultery because he was still legally and
scripturally married to Shay.
2) What would be the situation for the woman? She would be on her
own and could not marry according to Law and Scripture. Why? It
would be because she would commit adultery if she did, since she
was still legally married. What is her solution to the problem? Get a
legal and proper divorce, if possible.

C. The above is clearly the type scenario that was addressed by Moses as found in
Deut 24:1-4, which is the very passage the Pharisees alluded to in their effort to
entrap Jesus.
1. Mike Willis, an ultra conservative preacher and long time editor of Truth
Magazine (now Guardian of Truth), gave the following exegesis of
Deut 24:1-4:

“A reading of this passage demonstrates that Moses was trying to legislate
in such a way as to aid the woman because of the manner in which man
was abusing her. According to what I can understand was happening in
the days of Moses, a man would put away his wife without any concern for
her future. She would not be free to go out and marry another man and
yet she could not live with her husband. This left her in destitute
circumstances quite frequently. Hence, what Moses was trying to legislate
was something that would aid women who had been put away by their
husbands.”

“The Mosaical legislation said that if a man was going to put away his
wife, he had to give her a bill of divorcement that showed that she was
free from him and had the opportunity to remarry. Hence, it was
designed to protect the women from the harsh treatment husbands were
giving to them. Mike Willis Dayton, Ohio Truth Magazine XXIV: 14,
pp. 227-230 April 3, 1980.​

D.

Isa 50:1 – “Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother’s
divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom
I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for
your transgressions is your mother put away.”​

1. This passage is very important because it emphasizes the importance
of the “bill of divorcement” and teaches us that until there is an actual
legal divorce (with the papers) there is still hope for reconciliation. It also
clearly illustrates that “put away” does not mean “divorce”.
2. Evidently God did not deal treacherously with Israel by simply putting
her away and leaving it at that.
a. There was a “separation” but no divorce at this point, as was evidently
the case in the following passage:

Mal 2:14, 15 “Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been
witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou
hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy
covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit.
And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take
heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of
his youth.”​

b. In the above passage is the illusion to the abuse of a wife (treachery)
probably by having been "put away", and the passage states
that the covenant is yet intact.
1) Such would be the case because "put away" is not divorce,
and a marriage covenant is not ended by merely "putting away".
2) Marriages were ended only by writing a bill of divorcement, putting
it into her hand and then "putting away" or "sending her out of
the house" (Deut. 24:1-4).
3. The word translated “divorcement” (in Isa 50:1) is “kariythuwth,” which
STRONG defines as: “divorce, dismissal, divorcement”.
JFB – “HORSLEY best explains (as the antithesis between ‘I’ and
‘yourselves’ shows, though LOWTH translates, ‘Ye are sold’) I have
never given your mother a regular bill of divorcement; I have merely ‘put
her away’ for a time, and can, therefore, by right as her husband still take
her back on her submission; I have not made you, the children, over to
any ‘creditor’ to satisfy a debt; I therefore still have the right of a father
over you, and can take you back on repentance, though as rebellious
children you have sold yourselves to sin and its penalty (1Ki 21:25 ).”

The explanation (above) of the text is consistent with Deut 24:1-4.
“Put away” did not mean “divorce”. It meant or was equal to separation.


VII. What is Significant about Deut 24:1-4?

A. The order of the command of Moses was: write the bill of divorce
and “send her away” (shalach).
1. That there are two separate commands involved in the divorce
is evident.
2. The Hebrew word, "Shalach" is translated "send her away" and is
equivalent to the greek word APOLUO, which means "put away".

B. It is important to note that STRONG nowhere mentions divorce in
his definition of “shalach”, as found in the text.
1. This should not be surprising because in the passages where
“shalach” is used it is understood from the context to be
something less than a complete divorce, where papers were issued.
2. It is very significant that Jesus dealt with the very same matter in
His discourse with the Pharisees (Matt 19). Thus, it is prudent to
conclude that where Jesus used the word “apoluo” in his
response to the Pharisees, in reference to the Deut 24:1-4 scenario,
that it should NOT be translated “divorce”.
3. Furthermore, there is no reason for any “authority” to have
included “divorce” as part ot the definition of “apoluo”, as used
in Matt 19:9.
a. In fact, there are various reasons apoluo should not be
translated divorce.
1) It would result in redundancy.
2) There is another word (Apostasion) in the same context
that is used to refer to divorce, and is universally
translated as divorce.
b. The Greek word “apostasion” is translated “divorcement”
and is found 3 times in the KJV - all are in the gospels
and legal divorce is the implication. [Mt5:31; Mt19:7; Mr10:4]


VIII. Words sometimes only partially communicate and leave
room for speculation, theory and conjecture. A. Example: I met an old friend a few months ago that I had not seen in over 20 years. I knew she had married a doctor but did not know anything about him. She said to me, “I had to get rid of him”. Now, “get rid of” could be interpreted in various ways. It could mean she divorced him, it could mean she just told him IT IS OVER – We are THROUGH, and moved out, or sent him out; or she could have killed him. If she had wanted to clearly communicate the idea that she had divorced her husband she could certainly have used the word “divorced”, or even said, “I gave him his walking papers”, but since she did not I cannot be absolutely certain what she meant. There is a remote possibility that the man she married was already married when he married her or that he was a first cousin, both of which would have made the marriage illegal. Thus, in such case she would not have needed to do anything more than “put him away”, which was to end the relationship by permanent separation. Was God not being clear when He inspired writers to use certain words that mean “put away”, “send away” etc.? Did He want us to conclude that they had, in every case, actually divorced their wife? Some may have incorrectly used the same native language to mean “divorce,” but that is not what God said. When God gave important legislation regarding divorce he made it clear. In both the O.T. (Deut 24:1-4) and the N.T. (Matt 19:7-9) there is the allusion to actual papers (“bill of divorce”) when divorce (noun) is under consideration. But of course when God said “he may not put her away all his days” (Deut. 22:29) common sense dictates that the command disallowed a divorce because “put away” was involved in “divorce”. It just makes sense that if you are told to not “put away” you are being told you cannot divorce, although they are not the same thing. Nevertheless, some preachers are deliberately using the words "put away", in their teachings when they mean "divorce". Why, because that is what they need it to mean. When they need to know about someone's "eligibility" do they ask, "Have you been put away?" Of course they do not. They ask, "Have you been divorced?" If, in the above example, my friend had said, “I divorced him” or I gave him his “walking papers”, then I would have understood for certain that an actual divorce had taken place. As she worded it, all I knew for certain was that they were separated and did not have a good relationship.

IX. A Look at Various Old Testament Passages

(Ezra 10:19) “And they gave their promise that they would put away
(yatsa’ H3318) their wives; and being guilty, they presented a ram of the flock
as their trespass offering.” NKJV​

It is worthy of note that in the text there was no indication that the priests did
anything other than “put away” or separate from their foreign wives according to the
will of God. They did not need to actually divorce them because these were women that
they should never have married – women who God had said they could not marry. Thus,
they were committing sin in living with these women, which is the same type of thing
as “fornication” (porneia), which includes “incest”, according to STRONG. The fact
that they did not formally divorce their wives is in perfect harmony with Jesus’
“exception” – “except for fornication”, i.e., the “putting away” and marrying another
would not result in adultery being committed.

(Jeremiah 3:1) “They say, ‘If a man put away (shalach H7971) his wife,
and she go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? shall
not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers;
yet return again to me,’ saith the LORD.”​

In the above passage, the word “They” was doubtless a reference to the Jews who had
come to misunderstand and misuse Deut 24-1-4. (This will become evident when you
understand the message of the text.) In Deut 24 the husband was forbidden to take back
a wife to whom he had actually given a “bill of divorce” if she had married another.
He was not forbidden to take back a woman who he had “put away” or merely sent out of
the house, as we have seen from Isaiah 50:1, though it seems apparent from the text
(Jer 3:1) that such had become the thinking of the people. God said, Regardless of
this erroneous thinking I will take you back. He was saying, we have been separated
and you have played the harlot, nevertheless, I will take you back.

Was God asserting that he would do something that was against the Law, and therefore
would mess up the paradigm he had given?

(Jeremiah 3:8 ) “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding
Israel committed adultery I had put her away (shalach H7971), and given her a bill
of divorce (keriythuwth H3748); yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went
and played the harlot also.”​

After alluding to the fact that he had been previously dispatched to plead for
Israel’s return during the separation, Jeremiah stated that God had “given her
[Israel] a bill or certificate of divorce”, thus dissolving the marriage and relieving
God of any responsibility to Israel as his “chosen” or as his “wife” who He had
married (Jer3:14). In verse 14 we see where the Lord had told Jeremiah to
plead with his “back sliding” “wife” to return and he would take her back. If we
go back and consider verse 12 there should be no doubt that Jeremiah was
talking about what he had been told to say BEFORE the divorce had actually
been given.

Note how some would interpret Jer.3:8:
"And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed
adultery I had DIVORCED HER (put her away), and DIVORCED HER (given
her a bill of Divorce); yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went
and played the harlot also” (Jer 3:8).

In the above passage some emphatically argue that "put away" means divorce.
But if such is true then consider how ridiculous they make the passage read.
They have God saying: I DIVORCED HER AND I DIVORCED HER. Nevertheless,
the fact that God did two separate things (described with different words), to Israel
is positive proof that the sending away is not the divorce. It should be obvious that
"sending away" a spouse is not equal to divorcing her. One can put away and
not divorce and one can divorce and not put away. In either case, the requirement
of Deut. 24:1-3 are not met; therefore the marriage remains intact.

(Ezekiel 44:22) “Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her
that is put away (garash H1644): but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel,
or a widow that had a priest before.”​

The NKJV says, “driven out” instead of “put away”.

The command to the priests restricted them to marrying a virgin or a widow of
another priest. If the priests had obeyed the command it would have assured
that the priests did not marry one who could possibly be still married to another.
The above passage may be an indication that there were misunderstandings
among the Jews regarding what was an acceptable divorce. Marrying a virgin
or the widow of another priest assured that the woman had no legal ties to another,
and when you consider what their responsibilities were, it is understandable that
God would require such of these men.

X. Some Observations Regarding Divorce in the Epistles

A. Have you ever noticed that in the KJV or ASV there is no instance
of an apostle’s words being translated as “divorce”, “divorced” ,
or “bill of divorcement” etc?
1. However, “loosed” (LUSIS, 1 Cor 7:27,28) refers to and applies
to those who have been divorced.)
2. Neither Jesus nor the apostles specifically and plainly addressed
the matter of divorce.
a. Nevertheless, in an effort to explain the apostles’ teachings
to conform to their idea of what they THINK Jesus taught,
many assert that “chorizo” (rendered as “depart”,
1 Cor. 7:11) means “divorce”.
1) It does not.
2) However, it is something that may be involved in the process
of divorce.
b. Note STRONG’S definition below as copied in full from his work
used by SwordSearcher:
“from 5561; to place room between, i.e. part;
reflexively, to go away:--depart, put asunder,
separate.”

B. The words of the apostles constitute our authority to act religiously,
thus, the importance of the observation noted above, is evident.
Conclusion:

The practice of requiring celibacy is something that is contrary to the very reason given for marriage (1Cor7:2).
Divorce is not specifically and clearly authorized in the New Testament, but because marriage is dissolvable (contrary to Catholic decree), if done legally, those who have been through an unfortunate marriage and divorce are not still bound to a previous relationship. Marriage and divorce is not a law of the church, therefore it is not regulated by the church.
When a divorce takes place, one or both parties may have been guilty of sin, but the sin(s) may be forgiven (1 Cor 6:11). The last thing a divorced person needs is to be placed in a position that makes his/her endeavor to live the Christian life even more difficult (1Cor7:2). That God does not require the divorced to be punished is true because there is no scriptural evidence of it. In reading the works of Josephus, I was unable to find where he made any mention of Jesus teaching, or being charged with teaching, that certain marriages must be dissolved or that certain people had no right to a marriage. According to Josephus’ understanding, the only restriction…was that they be “at the age fit for it”. This is consistent with the Apostle Paul’s teachings in 1 Cor 7:36: “But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.” The male is to be a “man” and the female must have “reached the flower of her age”. Any other restrictions placed upon people are man-made and not of the gospel of Christ (Gal 1:8,9).
In our language “put away” is NOT the same as divorce. We do not talk like that. Only men who need APOLUO (put away) to refer to or include the divorce itself, with all that is involved, to justify their teaching and practice, talk like that in their writings. As a child did you ever play the game where you say the opposite of what you mean? If you say something wrong long enough you are going to get confused and the people that hear you are going to get confused. The translation from the ASV is correct and it means what it says.
Paul uses “depart” in 1 Cor 7:11, which is from “chorizo” and means separate. If she departs the logical result is that she is then SEPARATE from her husband.
Some are still clinging to the argument that only God joins and only God can unjoin. God “joins” people who marry, but when a couple marries they had a part in that decision. God would not have joined them if they had not determined to marry. If this same couple determine to divorce it is their decision and there is no scripture that indicates that God does not recognize it. Thus, when we recognize that the divorced are indeed “loosed” it becomes apparent that the passages in the New Testament that teach that marriage is to be allowed, are to be applied to those who are divorced. To fail to obey is to be guilty of teaching “doctrines of devils” by “forbidding to marry” (1Tim. 4:1-3).

 

[yedida]

Right....and it's that hate---that translates to *not* loving God (and not loving others----breaking all commandments, essentially) that God HATES. It's that sin that breaks the bonds of marriage----divorce is just recognizing the break and making provision so that there isn't further damage.




Because.......IMO.....what Christ was saying to the Pharisees is (basically)....."if there's going to be any turning away from your wife----any dismissal of her----it should *only* be for her unfaithfulness (not because of any lack of faithfulness on your part)". The thing is........that's all *should be's* because Jesus isn't going to take away man's free will. Even He won't mandate faithfulness.

So a woman should remain in an abusive marriage? That's God's best for her? Good grief!

To any person being abused, beaten on by their spouse (and, yes, men can be seriously beaten by their abusive wives) I'd say, "Get OUT."

We gotta use a little bit of common sense here. Marriage was intended to be a picture of God and His People. I don't think that picture includes adultery, and I don't think it includes abuse either.

 

[dayhiker]

STV4Him ... thanks for that post ... good to read someone else who has it figured out as to what the Bible is saying.

 

[favoritetoyisjoy]

As one who seems to be nearing this eventuality, I am curious how others feel about this passage from Malachi 2:16 -

"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.

Two things to ponder:

1) There are numerous other things God hates. At least 43 or so according to this website (with Scripture references):

At Least 43 Things God Hates

Reading from the list and the associated Scriptures, no one is exempt from what God hates. Who hasn't at one time or another lied, been prideful, or been guilty of idolatry?


2) It is interesting (to me at least) that the Hebrew used in Malachi (shalach) is more used for "sending away" or "seperate" than for divorce. It is a different word (keriythuwth) than the "certificate of divorce" mentioned in Deuteronomy 24 and other places. In fact, Deut. 24:1 says to give her the certificate of divorce (keriythuwth) and then send her away (shalach).

It's almost as if God hates the sending away of the wife without giving her the certificate of divorce in Malachi 2:16, rather than the act of divorce itself.

Comments?

I agree that God hates divorce. Except for adultery, death, and the departure of an unbelieving spouse, the Bible does allow for separation as described in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

I'd like to suggest that you and your wife start having daily devotions and prayer together. From a different post, I hope it helps:

My wife waited very patiently for the first 30 years of our marriage for me to change some of my behaviors. We had our "tiffs" but she bounced back and remained her sweet little Godly self too many times to count, just like I knew she would. So I didn't change, there was no deterrent, no motivation or incentive. She was like a radio playing in the background, if I wanted to I could hear every word, but I could also ignore it, so I did. Yes, I was very self-centered, selfish.

When she finally got enough of it she started to put her foot down. She stopped retreating, which was hard for her, and I had to start giving in, which was hard for me. As it turned out, we were both taken to our cores, if that makes sense, we both ended up making needed changes, and the outcome was such that I am actually glad it happened because now there are no skeletons in the closet. We keep short accounts now.

Like you, divorce was not an option for us. There were times that we weren't sure we were going to make it, but we never got to the point of seriously considering any sort of separation. In Proverbs 24:10 it says:

"If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small."

Certainly our strength was tested. Only the strong survive. According to Ephesians 5:32, the marriage bond is to be patterned after Christ's relationship to His Betrothed, the Church, and He said He would never leave or forsake us, with not even a shadow of turning away.

I will offer some advice, and how I wish I had followed this from the beginning of our relationship. In fact, if there was only one thing I could go back and change, this would be it. Have devotions and prayer together daily. In Malachi 2:15 it says about marriage:

"Did He not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union?"

When the three of you, spouses and the Spirit, bond and fellowship together, it ministers to your souls, re-centers you, softens your hearts, and brings you closer. It just does something to you. And we know from Isaiah 26:3:

"Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee; for he trusteth in Thee."

Having daily devotions and prayer helps us keep our minds on Him. LinkH mentioned once a quote that couples that pray together have a very low divorce rate. I had heard it was less than 1%, and I believe it, because I've seen what a difference it makes. (But we're not sure of the source.) One thing is for sure, I've never heard a divorcee claim that they got divorced despite having daily devotions and prayer together.

During the time we were having difficulties, we weren't having devotions and prayer together daily, far from it, which looking back on it now, would have made all of the difference.

 

[mkgal1]

So a woman should remain in an abusive marriage? That's God's best for her? Good grief!

To any person being abused, beaten on by their spouse (and, yes, men can be seriously beaten by their abusive wives) I'd say, "Get OUT."

We gotta use a little bit of common sense here. Marriage was intended to be a picture of God and His People. I don't think that picture includes adultery, and I don't think it includes abuse either.

Absolutely not. You're misunderstanding what I posted. I had posted this:

Because.......IMO.....what Christ was saying to the Pharisees is (basically)....."if there's going to be any turning away from your wife----any dismissal of her----it should *only* be for her unfaithfulness (not because of any lack of faithfulness on your part)". The thing is........that's all *should be's* because Jesus isn't going to take away man's free will. Even He won't mandate faithfulness.

When I mention "any turning away"....."any dismissal".....I mean not being faithful in loving that person as yourself. Abuse is hardly loving......and completely goes against God's standard for marriage.

IMO.....Christ was speaking out to the Pharisees for their own lack of faithfulness. The allowance for divorcement wasn't to give the ones with hardened hearts as pass (as was mentioned earlier). That allowance is made for the one that's a victim of another person's lack of faithfulness.

Your response (understanding my post to mean that abuse is no just cause for divorcement) demonstrates why the Pharisees used this question to try to trap Jesus. Christ's answer was directed to them specifically (Pharisees).....not a general answer to the question of divorcement. That matters a great deal.

 

[mkgal1]

Svt4Him.....thanks for that post.

 

[Sunshine Locket]

I wonder if some might think this entire thread, two years old and revived just this month, is a bit harsh? In the attitudes some display regarding God hating divorce, and therefore their being divorced.

Consider that there are people who were divorced by their spouse and they never saw it coming.

Is that person then hated by God for having been divorced by their mate?
Maybe we should see the divorcee's as worthy or respect rather than the judgment that seems to proliferate here. Just my thoughts.

 

[CounselorForChrist]

I tend to avoid this section because my views are strong on this subject but I had to reply to this.

So a woman should remain in an abusive marriage? That's God's best for her? Good grief!

Yes. Well yes to the she should remain in the marriage. Am I saying it makes sense? No. Our human minds look for escape. But God sees things differently. If someone is being abused they need to move out if they cannot get their spouse help. If you have to live separated from them until the day you die then its what you have to do. Which leads to this below....

Consider that there are people who were divorced by their spouse and they never saw it coming. Is that person then hated by God for having been divorced by their mate?

In this case it means you are stuck single until you die unless you remarry that person since you are still considered married by God. Again from a human stand point this may not make sense. But to God its different. God won't hate the person that had no choice in the divorce, but that person is still stuck realizing they are married in Gods eyes so they must stay single.

Some may say thats just not fair. BUt this is why we are to try as hard as possible to make sure we marry someone that we are SURE we will want to stay with the rest of our lives. And yes I do realize people change. So the person you love can change later. But none the less we know what God says and we have to accept it.

Think about the long term of our life. Life is beyond short. SO whatever pain we go through in this life doesn't matter to much. Yes we may suffer if in a bad marraige. But we need to realize we shouldn't make this all about this life. Any mount of pain is fine since we know after we die we will be pain free forever and ever.

Again, if your in a marriage where you are literally being beat, you can get help or just live somewhere else. If your spouse divorce you then while you may be stuck forever alone, at least you will be free of the abuse. Remember to God said we will have trials in life. Some may last the rest of our life. I know as well as any some trials keep on going and going.

Heres something I just said in another topic:

In the end people can throw verses around all they want about thinking the bible allows divorce, but the most important thing to remember is God says he hates divorce. So if He hates it then the argument about what a scripture may mean is null and void since God already said He hates it.

I know one of two outcomes will happen when we die (assuming you divorce):

1. We will find out God will say we could have divorced, but He won't be mad since we still stay married.

2. Or we will found out divorce is wrong and God will say those who divorced are in sin ever since the divorce.

Not sure about anyone else but I'd rather be safe then sorry and know I was living in sin if I were divorced. Mind you I am not against divorce out of fear of "what if".

Lastly I would like to say I reported this topic since we are not even suppose to suggest divorce is ok, according to the rules.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Lastly I would like to say I reported this topic since we are not even suppose to suggest divorce is ok, according to the rules.

No one is encouraging anyone in particular to get divorced in this thread. It is a discussion of the mechanics of Scripture on the topic. If you don't want to participate, then feel free not to.