God Hates Divorce

[BigDaddy4]

I'm fresh out of Greek and Hebrew scriptures. Right now I've got a New American Standard and a New International version, and I reckon they'll have to do.

Try this: Blue Letter Bible - Home Page

God hates divorce. He said so in Malachi.

No he didn't. It was only translated that way in some versions of the Bible.

He also got divorced, first from faithless Israel and then from treacherous Judah-- so go figure.

Yeah, go figure that God would do something that he supposedly "hates".

Now, down to the part where the rubber meets the road: God hates divorce because it hurts people. I've been through two of them, the second much worse than the first, so I can answer that it's so.

Won't disagree. Been through one, almost went through another.

Argue about certificates, jots and tittles and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin according to Hebrew and Greek texts all you want, the simple fact remains that divorce hurts people. I did it because I was being abused, cheated on and if I stayed much longer I probably would have been murdered, so divorce is somewhat better than that, but-- it still hurts all the same. In the beginning, it wasn't so. But, in the beginning Adam and Eve were without sin, so treachery wouldn't have occurred to them. It took awhile--- probably until after Noah-- for things to get so bad that divorce could be a preferable outcome-- with or without a certificate.

Jesus' words and the context in which he said them do matter to me. If marital unfaithfulness is the only reason allowed by Jesus to divorce, then you divorcing because of abuse makes your divorce a no-no and you are committing adultery in your re-marriage. Fortunately, I don't subscribe to that train of thought and fully support your leaving.

I really think arguing whether Jesus was talking about certificates misses the whole point, and if He were here in the flesh he would no doubt say so. He always seems to go to the heart of the matter--- murder is sin, but the anger in your heart that leads up to murder is just as sinful-- and so I have a hard time believing He would say that the issue was whether or not you gave your ex-wife a certificate before sending her away. It goes quite a bit deeper than that.

But he did say that and in doing so, confirmed what God gave to Moses in the OT.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Jesus spoke about divorce, and He was both clear and adamant about it.

Yes he was. Unfortunately, you are missing his point.

You see, the Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

And Jesus answered, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother and cleave to his wife: and they shall be one flesh? And after they are no longer separate, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

And the Pharisees answered, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?"

Two different words used here in the original language, with two different meanings, for two different concepts. I have bolded apostasion and apolyō
to highlight.

And Jesus came back with an astonishing response: He said, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
-It is noteworthy that Jesus implied that the only reason Moses, not God even, gave them an out was because their hearts were hard.

It is noteworthy that only apolyō is used and not apostasion. It is the "put away" or "sending away" (apolyō) that he is talking about with no certificate of divorce (apostasion).

Lol then the Pharisees said well if that's the case its better not to marry! And Jesus responded that not every man would be able to hear His teachings.

If we put Malachi in context of this, we get an entirely different perspective. I do not mean to condemn, that is not my intent. I only wish to share Scripture. I do understand that some situations are unbearable, I was in that situation, and I thank God for giving me the strength to remain committed to a man who needed desparately to heal and change.

See Matthew 19:3-10

As referenced in the OP, Duet 24 uses 2 different Hebrew words for certificate of divorce (keriythuwth) and "sending" or "putting away" (shalach). And guess what? Malachi 2:16 uses the sending away word (shalach)... why is that? Could it be that God and Jesus said what they meant and meant what they said rather than man's mistranslation of what they said?

In context, you can't make it mean what you want it to mean.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Forbidding divorce (or most of it) by declaring it adultery does not abolish the law. It adds a higher requirement on top of the law. Christ did this repeatedly in Matthew 5. The law forbids murder. Christ warned about angry words spoken. The Old Testament says not to break your oaths, and Christ said to swear not at all. The Old Testament said not to commit adultery, and Christ taught against looking at a woman to lust after her. The law said you could give your wife a writing of divorcement, but Christ said if a man divorces his wife except it be for fornication, and marries another, he commits adultery, and He that marries her that is divorced commits adultery.

The Law does not REQUIRE men to divorce their wives (aside from illegitimate/forbidden marriages). So forbidding divorce as Christ did does not contradict or abolish the Law.

A deeper study in context and word meanings would not agree with your statements.

How do you connect that to divorce? Does your church congregation decree people to be divorced? I've seen plenty of wedding ceremonies at church, but I've never seen a divorce ceremony.

You make a marriage vow on earth, heaven recognizes it. You end that vow on earth, heaven recognizes that, too. It's a very simple concept. Church ceremonies are not a requirement to be married. Be thankful you haven't seen a divorce "ceremony" - it's called divorce court.

Israel's hearts were hard when Moses gave the law. Our hearts should not be hardened.

Hebrews 3:8
do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert,

Nice sentiment. As a Christian, they should not be. But not everyone is a Christian are they? Regardless, we are all human and fall short of God's glory and yes, that includes the fact that a Christian heart may become hardened during the course of a marriage.

Not the ones we are discussing. They are quite clearly about the kind of 'sending away' that Moses allowed, the kind with a certificate. This is extremely clear in the passage, and I pointed it out in detail earlier in the thread.

Actually they are the ones we are discussing. In context, it is very clear what Jesus was saying.

 

[mjmcmillan]

Big Daddy, I'm taking a risk in saying this but it's got to be said.

Arguing the meaning in the Greek did not impress me even a little bit. I saw right through that and you can bet the rent Jesus does too. That's "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" stuff, and is the mark of the Pharisee or I'm mistaken.

Jesus always goes to the heart of the matter. In divorce, in murder, in stealing or in anything else. What's so wrong in divorce? It's not whether or not you gave your spouse a divorce decree. It's the treachery that led up to the divorce in the first place. Divorcing your wife on trumped-up stuff so you can marry a younger woman--- that'll get you into trouble every time, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you give her a certificate.

Jesus goes to the heart--- every time. He's interested in motive at least as much as in the act itself, and the Gospels show this clearly. That's one big reason this Christian walk is so hard--- it's not just what you do, but what's going on INSIDE you that counts. It's easy to look like a Christian, it's quite a bit harder--- impossible, without the Holy Spirit-- to really be it.

I've learned to go on alert whenever somebody starts saying "But in the Greek it says-----" because I know I'm about to get handed something that isn't quite the way it oughta be and which the writer is counting on my ignorance of Greek to let it slide. Problem: No English translation seems to leave the opening that the writer wants-- so he goes Greek. Hmmm....

Incidentally... I have been through two marriage and divorce cycles, the same woman each time with about a fifteen-year interval between the two. The second marriage was the "reconciliation" marriage. She decided she didn't like me and pretty much drove me out-- so here we are today. Marriage to another woman??? How did you ever get that idea? Is there an invisible "rings" icon??? I'm divorced, not even looking to get re-attached. Given what I've been seeing, it's likely I'll remain as I am for the foreseeable, anyway.

 

[LinkH]

BigDaddy,

I posted this earlier in the thread. I looked it up in the interlinear, too.

'Sending away' is still 'sending away' even with a writing of divorcement. Look at the context, the Pharisees ask why Moses said a man should DIVORCE his wife and SEND HER AWAY. The issue is NOT putting her away without a divorce, but rather with a divorce-- with a writing of divorcement.

Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not so.

The issue here is sending away with a legal divorce certificate.


Apolyō Does NOT mean to send away without a writing of divorcement. Is that what you are reading into the text? That is an impossible interpretation. It is impossible that the Pharisees used the word that way based on the text.


The topic is very clearly apolyō with an apostasion, putting away WITH a certificate. Notice the question, why did Moses allow a man to divorce his wife and to put her away. First divorcing her with a certificate, then putting her away. This is the 'legal' putting away of wives under discussion. The topic of putting away a wife without a certificate doesn't show up. Hillel and Shammai were debating whether a woman could be put away for displeasing her husband by burning breakfast for example (Hillel) or whether there had to be something serious like sexual immorality (Shammai). Divorce contrary to the law of Moses without a certificate wasn't the issue. It doesn't make sense that scribes and Pharisees would promote such a thing since the Pharisees were a kind of religious purity society for keeping Torah and interpreting it.

Do you have any historical evidence at all to back up your ideas? I know having a scholar say something doesn't prove you are right necessarily, but since your claims seem to be based on some superior knowledge of Greek, can you find one source of someone who really knows Greek (beyond Greek 401 in college) who agrees with what you are saying? I can just read the passage with an interlinear and from context it is absolutely 100% clear that the issue is not putting away wives without certificates from the context. The way the words are used makes it clear that apolyō here is used to refer to putting away a wife with a certificate...the way Moses allowed.

 

[LinkH]

These are quotes from well-known early Christians who read and spoke in Greek. They were not that far removed i time from the New Testament.

Since men who actually knew and wrote Greek from back then interpreted Christ's word's to forbid divorce and remarriage, arguing that there is some secret meaning about the Greek words that indicate that He was actually saying the OPPOSITE of how the passage appears to say in the translations we read (translated, usually, by people who have some knowledge of ancient Greek) seems rather weak.

These quotes argue against that sort of translation consipiracy-theory reasoning.

I got this from StayCatholic.com - ECF Divorce and Remarriage

Justin Martyr

In regard to chastity, [Jesus] has this to say: If anyone look with lust at a woman, he has already before God committed adultery in his heart. "And, whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband, commits adultery." According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman. He repudiates not only one who actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do so; for not only our actions are manifest to God, but even our thoughts (First Apology 15 [A.D. 151]).

Clement of Alexandria

That Scripture counsels marriage, however, and never allows any release from the union is expressly contained in the law: "You shall not divorce a wife, except for reason of immorality." And it regards as adultery the marriage of a spouse, while the one from whom a separation was made is still alive. "Whoever takes a divorced woman as wife commits adultery," it says: "for if anyone divorces his wife, he debauches her"; that is, he compels her to commit adultery. And not only does he that divorces her become the cause of this, but also he that takes the woman and gives her the opportunity of sinning; for if he did not take her, she would return to her husband (Miscellanies 2:23:145:3 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

Just as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seems to be married to a man, while a former husband yet lives, so also the man who seems to marry her [and] who has been divorced does not marry her, but, according to the declaration of our Savior, he commits adultery with her (Commentaries on Matthew 14:24 [A.D. 248]).

 

[BigDaddy4]

Big Daddy, I'm taking a risk in saying this but it's got to be said.

Arguing the meaning in the Greek did not impress me even a little bit. I saw right through that and you can bet the rent Jesus does too. That's "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" stuff, and is the mark of the Pharisee or I'm mistaken.

Wasn't trying to impress you. Specific words have specific meanings. Going to the orginal language may help in determining what those words and meaning are.

Jesus always goes to the heart of the matter. In divorce, in murder, in stealing or in anything else. What's so wrong in divorce? It's not whether or not you gave your spouse a divorce decree. It's the treachery that led up to the divorce in the first place. Divorcing your wife on trumped-up stuff so you can marry a younger woman--- that'll get you into trouble every time, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you give her a certificate.

When you are talking about God's word in Malachi 2:16 (God hates divorce), context does matter. That and the Matthew verses get thrown around too easily and people are guilted into staying in marriages they have no business staying in because they don't want to upset God. I despise God's word being used in that fashion and felt the need to speak out.

Jesus goes to the heart--- every time. He's interested in motive at least as much as in the act itself, and the Gospels show this clearly. That's one big reason this Christian walk is so hard--- it's not just what you do, but what's going on INSIDE you that counts. It's easy to look like a Christian, it's quite a bit harder--- impossible, without the Holy Spirit-- to really be it.

Don't disagree here.

I've learned to go on alert whenever somebody starts saying "But in the Greek it says-----" because I know I'm about to get handed something that isn't quite the way it oughta be and which the writer is counting on my ignorance of Greek to let it slide. Problem: No English translation seems to leave the opening that the writer wants-- so he goes Greek. Hmmm....

Gee, which is better and more accurate - the original language or the interpretation of the original language??

What you do with the information is your business...

Incidentally... I have been through two marriage and divorce cycles, the same woman each time with about a fifteen-year interval between the two. The second marriage was the "reconciliation" marriage. She decided she didn't like me and pretty much drove me out-- so here we are today. Marriage to another woman??? How did you ever get that idea? Is there an invisible "rings" icon??? I'm divorced, not even looking to get re-attached. Given what I've been seeing, it's likely I'll remain as I am for the foreseeable, anyway.

Sorry for what you went through. And I apologize for misunderstanding your situation.

 

[BigDaddy4]

BigDaddy,

I posted this earlier in the thread. I looked it up in the interlinear, too.

'Sending away' is still 'sending away' even with a writing of divorcement. Look at the context, the Pharisees ask why Moses said a man should DIVORCE his wife and SEND HER AWAY. The issue is NOT putting her away without a divorce, but rather with a divorce-- with a writing of divorcement.

The 2 go hand in hand, according to Duet. 24. You can't do one without the other.

Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not so.

The issue here is sending away with a legal divorce certificate.

No, the issue here is sending away without a legal divorce certificate.

Apolyō Does NOT mean to send away without a writing of divorcement. Is that what you are reading into the text? That is an impossible interpretation. It is impossible that the Pharisees used the word that way based on the text.

Agreed. It just means sending away. All on its own. And used several times without the context of marriage to mean the same thing. All of a sudden, in the context of marriage, it means something else???

The topic is very clearly apolyō with an apostasion, putting away WITH a certificate. Notice the question, why did Moses allow a man to divorce his wife and to put her away. First divorcing her with a certificate, then putting her away. This is the 'legal' putting away of wives under discussion. The topic of putting away a wife without a certificate doesn't show up. Hillel and Shammai were debating whether a woman could be put away for displeasing her husband by burning breakfast for example (Hillel) or whether there had to be something serious like sexual immorality (Shammai). Divorce contrary to the law of Moses without a certificate wasn't the issue. It doesn't make sense that scribes and Pharisees would promote such a thing since the Pharisees were a kind of religious purity society for keeping Torah and interpreting it.

Apostasion is the formal legal procedure. Apolyo is the action taken by the man and woman after the legal action is complete. God hates the apolyo without the apostasion, according to the text.

Do you have any historical evidence at all to back up your ideas? I know having a scholar say something doesn't prove you are right necessarily, but since your claims seem to be based on some superior knowledge of Greek, can you find one source of someone who really knows Greek (beyond Greek 401 in college) who agrees with what you are saying? I can just read the passage with an interlinear and from context it is absolutely 100% clear that the issue is not putting away wives without certificates from the context. The way the words are used makes it clear that apolyō here is used to refer to putting away a wife with a certificate...the way Moses allowed.

I read what the Bible says, and seek to find the meanings to words that cause confusion. I stumbled on this partly by accident, when seeking to find why "God hates divorce" and wondering what else He "hates". It was then I noticed Malachi 2:16 and Duet. 24:1 didn't square up. Two separate words with 2 separate meaning, especially when looking at context in how those words are used in other areas of the Bible.

I believe the Bible is the word of God, and God is not the author of confusion. Therefore, I let the Bible interpret the Bible as much as possible.

 

[BigDaddy4]

These are quotes from well-known early Christians who read and spoke in Greek. They were not that far removed i time from the New Testament.

Since men who actually knew and wrote Greek from back then interpreted Christ's word's to forbid divorce and remarriage, arguing that there is some secret meaning about the Greek words that indicate that He was actually saying the OPPOSITE of how the passage appears to say in the translations we read (translated, usually, by people who have some knowledge of ancient Greek) seems rather weak.

These quotes argue against that sort of translation consipiracy-theory reasoning.

I got this from StayCatholic.com - ECF Divorce and Remarriage

Cute. Now go find the quotes in the original Greek and compare the words used and their meanings. Try from an unbiased source. Of course the Catholic church is going to translate it according to their beliefs. Why would they publish something contrary to their views on divorce?

 

[mkgal1]

****Sorry....this got long
I hope it doesn't seem completely random.


For the sake of not adding to the debate of "putting away" or "divorce".....I think it's help ful to understand the heart of God (what He hates/what He values) by looking at the Bible as a whole.

In Malachi....there is lots of emphasis on "treachery".....and piety (extra sacrifices---ones that God didn't ask for---thinking that would "buy" the priests God's favor). It didn't. He (God) wouldn't accept their sacrifices. The Levites were faithful:

"The purpose of my covenant with the Levites was to bring life and peace, and that is what I gave themThis required reverence from them, and they greatly revered me and stood in awe of my name. 6They passed on to the people the truth of the instructions they received from me. They did not lie or cheat; they walked with me, living good and righteous lives, and they turned many from lives of sin."

....and the other priests were *not* faithful (that, to me, seems to be what God hates the most in this passage---their lack of faithfulness to HIM....and their misrepresentation of Him....and their false piety)

But you priests have left God’s paths. Your instructions have caused many to stumble into sin. You have corrupted the covenant I made with the Levites,” says the LORD of Heaven’s Armies. 9“So I have made you despised and humiliated in the eyes of all the people. For you have not obeyed me but have shown favoritism in the way you carry out my instructions.”

When we aren't loving/revering God.....we aren't loving others (any man who says he love me, yet hates his brother is a liar--1st John 4:20)....and that shows up in Malachi 2 also:

13Here is another thing you do. You cover the LORD’s altar with tears, weeping and groaning because he pays no attention to your offerings and doesn’t accept them with pleasure. 14You cry out, “Why doesn’t the LORD accept my worship?” I’ll tell you why! Because the LORD witnessed the vows you and your wife made when you were young. But you have been unfaithful to her, though she remained your faithful partner, the wife of your marriage vows.

Much of the same theme is running through Isaiah:

"What makes you think I want all your sacrifices?" says the LORD. "I am sick of your burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fattened cattle. I get no pleasure from the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. When you come to worship me, who asked you to parade through my courts with all your ceremony?Stop bringing me your meaningless gifts; the incense of your offerings disgusts me! As for your celebrations of the new moon and the Sabbath and your special days for fasting--they are all sinful and false. I want no more of your pious meetings. When you lift up your hands in prayer, I will not look. Though you offer many prayers, I will not listen, for your hands are covered with the blood of innocent victims.

Another word that seems to be a clue as to what God hates is "ruthless".....and that's often found in Isaiah:

For the ruthless will come to an end and the scorner will be finished, Indeed all who are intent on doing evil will be cut off.

...and pride and arrogance:

Human pride will be humbled, and human arrogance will be brought down. Only the LORD will be exalted on that day of judgment~Isaiah 2:17

So....to me, it just makes sense to look for the common thread running through all that.

 

[ValleyGal]

I have not kept up with detailed reading, but I do see there is discussion about the words shalach and apoluo (apolyo). The Greek language is full of nuances that are missed in translation. I did a study many years ago about this, and found this:

[FONT=&quot]The term “shalach” I mentioned earlier has nothing to do with divorce, although it is the word used in Malachi. It is also used in the following contexts: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

1. Genesis 8:7: (Noah on the Ark) ...of the ark which he had made. And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to…
2. Genesis 24:7: (God giving Abraham the Promised Land) ...Unto thy seed will I give this land; he shall send his angel before thee…
3. Exodus 5:1: (Moses delivering Israel from Egypt) ...the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto...
4. Joshua 6:25: (Rahab hid the Spies) ...day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.
5. 2 Kings 5:10: (Naaman healed) ...of the house of Elisha. And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and ...

The term “apoluo” Jesus used to refer to Malachi is used in the following contexts, and again has nothing to do with legal proceedings:

1. Matthew 14:15: (Jesus feeds the Five Thousand) ...desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go ...
2. Luke 8:38: (Man with/ 2000 plus Demons) ...that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying, Return to thine
3. Luke 13:12: (Woman with the Issue of Blood) ...her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid ...
4. Acts 4:23: (Lame man healed at the Gate Called Beautiful) ...this miracle of healing was shewed. And being let go, they went to their own company, and...
5. Acts 15:33: (Judas & Silas Leaving Antioch) ...And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the...

There are separate terms used for the legal proceedings regarding divorce. When God (and Jesus) says that he hates divorce, he means he hates it when someone "sends away" their spouse without the legal benefit of divorce. If you send someone away without divorce, you doom them to a life of being unable to remarry or committing adultery if they do remarry.

But if you send them away WITH the divorce certificate, the divorce is dissolved. You no longer have a spouse, so either is free to marry someone else. If you are not married anymore, marrying someone else is not adultery because you have no spouse. This is why God hates sending someone away without the benefit of divorce....it prevents them from marrying. And God's design for mankind is to be married.

[/FONT]

 

[ValleyGal]

Sorry....this post is just to delete a double post. [FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[LinkH]

Cute. Now go find the quotes in the original Greek and compare the words used and their meanings. Try from an unbiased source. Of course the Catholic church is going to translate it according to their beliefs. Why would they publish something contrary to their views on divorce?

That's really not the point. The people I quoted are 'claimed' by Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Anglicans.

The point is that people who actually knew the Greek from the time period knew that Jesus was forbidding divorce. They did not interpret 'apoluo' to mean 'putting away without a writing of divorcement.' As is 100% clear from the usage of the term in Matthew 19, the term can be used for putting away WITH a writing of divorcement... as it is used in that very passage.

The Pharisees asked why Moses said to give the writing of divorcement, and to put her away-- apoluo. That's the context of the conversation. This argument that apoluo has inherent in it's meaning 'without a divorce certificate' is sophistry. It contradicts the usage of the term in Matthew 19. And people who knew Greek who actually lived back then, like the people I quoted, knew better. They actually knew Greek. Do you really know Greek? Does the guy who wrote the article on the Divorce Hope website? I doubt it. Their quotes debunk the conspiracy theory that the translators have got it all wrong.

 

[LinkH]

[FONT=&quot]
There are separate terms used for the legal proceedings regarding divorce. When God (and Jesus) says that he hates divorce, he means he hates it when someone "sends away" their spouse without the legal benefit of divorce. If you send someone away without divorce, you doom them to a life of being unable to remarry or committing adultery if they do remarry. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

I posted about this earlier, but Matthew 19 disproves the theory you present above. The question Jesus answered was why did Moses command to give her a writing of divorcement and to send her away/put her away. That's the type of divorce Jesus is talking about. Moses did not allow the divorce without the writing of divorcement. Jesus said Moses allowed divorce, but from the beginning it was not so. That was the basis of His argument-- marriage in Genesis. Two shall be one flesh, and what God has joined together, let not God put assunder. Divorce was allowed because men's hearts were so, but Christ called people back to the higher order, the original intent of marriage, and then declared that if a man put away His wife (and the context discusses the Mosaic divorce with a writing of divorcement), except it be for fornication, he commits adultery.

That's the way people who actually knew Greek and read the passage understood it, people who lived close in time and weren't just learning the language out of a book. Are we supposed to believe that people back then didn't understand their own language and only now are divorce-advocates smart enough to figure out what their own language really meant?

But if you send them away WITH the divorce certificate, the divorce is dissolved. You no longer have a spouse, so either is free to marry someone else. If you are not married anymore, marrying someone else is not adultery because you have no spouse. This is why God hates sending someone away without the benefit of divorce....it prevents them from marrying. And God's design for mankind is to be married.
[/FONT]

God may hate that. But Malachi doesn't say God hates putting away a spouse without a certificate. It tells us that He hates the putting away of a spouse. That could be done with or without a certificate. Matthew 19 is about the legal divorce, the one in the law of Moses, the kind with a certificate.

Look it up in a commentary. The divorce 'for any cause' was a hot topic back then. The House of Hillel allowed a legal divorce with a certificate for 'any cause'-- things like the wife burning the bread. The House of Shammai allowed it for serious things like adultery. These were the two big schools of thought of the PHarisee movement. The Pharisees were asking Jesus' opinion on this debate, not the illegal practice of putting away a wife contrary to the Law of Moses. The Pharisee movement was about how to keep Torah (including their traditional oral law).

 

[mjmcmillan]

Accepting this "But it says something different in the Greek" stuff presents a major problem. That problem is that, in order to accept that, I have to accept the idea that Jesus did something totally different here than He does throughout the rest of the Gospels. He was never one to strain at gnats while swallowing a camel whole, and here I'm expected to believe He would do precisely that???

The context makes it clear enough that we're not talking of documentation--- though, then as now if you send your wife away without a divorce decree you've created trouble for her and for yourself--- marrying another woman without getting properly divorced is bad news both in the Church and in the World-- Jesus went to the heart of the matter as He always does. Divorcing "for any reason" is treachery. Leaving your wife so you can marry a younger/more beautiful woman-- which is what is on the table here--- is an abomination and is only allowed if she was unfaithful. Even then there's enough caveats that it becomes clear that Jesus wants reconciliation if that be possible. Divorce is what you do when there is no other remedy.

 

[mkgal1]

I posted about this earlier, but Matthew 19 disproves the theory you present above. The question Jesus answered was why did Moses command to give her a writing of divorcement and to send her away/put her away. That's the type of divorce Jesus is talking about. Moses did not allow the divorce without the writing of divorcement. Jesus said Moses allowed divorce, but from the beginning it was not so. That was the basis of His argument-- marriage in Genesis.

I hope I can articulate my thoughts. It's still not the divorce in itself that God hates (IMO)....more specifically, I believe, it's the treacherous way the Pharisees were treating people (especially wives). They were using......not genuinely loving. They were manipulating laws to their own advantage.....and, placing burdens on others that they were not willing to carry themselves.

Think of it this way......the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus (showing that He was trying to abolish or negate their precious laws). I also believe they were, in the meantime, trying to hold to their twisted version of what the law allowed for them to do (the loophole....that they *could* divorce if they weren't "pleased" with their wife (for just about any imperfection they found in her). *That* .....IMO.....is what Jesus was speaking to them against.....was the lack of faithfulness.....their attitude of disposable marriage (when it didn't serve them any longer).

And to clarify about the question....they asked, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away?” When Jesus answered......it was to put the conversation back on God's original intention---that there wasn't sin in His creation. Sin is what causes divorce (hardness of heart, like disposing of the wife when the husband grew tired of her).........and, for that......Moses (and Christ) ----I believe---allowed for her to be "set free" from the contempt, but to also make provision for her needs of food and shelter. It wasn't that Moses was commanding the Pharisees to "put away" their wives for being imperfect (which seems to be how they had justified themselves as piously "following the law"). The law of Moses in regards to divorce (again.....my opinion) was a provision for the wife ( to not have to live with contempt), more than it was a privilege for the men to take advantage of.

Another way of putting it......the first question was (I'll try to paraphrase)..."Hey, Jesus....is it lawful for us to divorce our wives as long as we give her a writ of divorce.....for ANY reason---even if she's getting old, and we'd like a younger wife?" Jesus replied that before sin......divorce wasn't a possibility or necessity......only sin separates (paraphrased....and in my belief).

Divorce was allowed because men's hearts were so, but Christ called people [in this case, the Pharisees] back to the higher order, the original intent of marriage, and then declared that if a man put away His wife (and the context discusses the Mosaic divorce with a writing of divorcement), except it be for [her] fornication, he commits adultery.

I agree with you here. Divorce would be the husband's (rightful) response to his wife's sin of breaking her faithfulness to him. He wouldn't have to live with someone that wasn't faithful in the marriage. It's the sin that separates.

 

[mkgal1]

Look it up in a commentary. The divorce 'for any cause' was a hot topic back then. The House of Hillel allowed a legal divorce with a certificate for 'any cause'-- things like the wife burning the bread. The House of Shammai allowed it for serious things like adultery. These were the two big schools of thought of the PHarisee movement. The Pharisees were asking Jesus' opinion on this debate, not the illegal practice of putting away a wife contrary to the Law of Moses. The Pharisee movement was about how to keep Torah (including their traditional oral law).

I don't believe they were exactly "asking Jesus' opinion on this debate"....not in a sincere way. The text says they were trying to trap Him. This encounter (IMO) has less to do with divorce than it has to do with the Pharisees trying to get rid of Jesus lawfully (being justified in having HIm killed). That plays out further, when it's all read in context and with the proper time line.

 

[mkgal1]

Divorcing "for any reason" is treachery. Leaving your wife so you can marry a younger/more beautiful woman-- which is what is on the table here--- is an abomination and is only allowed if she was unfaithful. Even then there's enough caveats that it becomes clear that Jesus wants reconciliation if that be possible. Divorce is what you do when there is no other remedy.

I would only slightly tweak this. I think (more specifically) what Jesus was saying is that "turning your heart away from your wife for any reason besides her lack of faithfulness is treachery and a lack of faithfulness on your part." It's my opinion that Jesus is backing up the law of Moses and is permitting a writ of divorce if the man *does* desire a younger/more beautiful wife (lack of faithfulness---the husband's sin and hardness of heart)......he (the husband) is "allowed" to give his wife a writ of divorce and send her on her way. It's not that Jesus is condoning that......He's "allowing" it. It's not beneficial to anyone to live in a loveless marriage full of contempt.

 

[ValleyGal]

Link, you mentioned my "theory" is disproved by Matthew 19. Let's look at the passage. This is from the "He Left" thread on the Marriage board:

Originally Posted by oceansmile

But what about Matthew 19:8? Jesus seems pretty clear about divorce not being God's plan and how it was only allowed by Moses because the Israelites's hearts were hardened. Since the Jews were divorcing, not just sending their wives away, I think it's pretty clear that Jesus was speaking against divorce as we know it.
​

Jesus was making several points. First, the Pharisees asked if they could divorce for any and every reason. Jesus' response was that divorce was not God's original intent for marriage.

The Pharisees then asked why Moses commanded that a man gives her a certificate of divorce AND send her away. Jesus clarified it was due to hardness of heart. Sin. We simply live in a sinful world. An example - I was married for only one month to my second husband. He beat me three times, each escalating worse than the previous. All arguments were because I caught him using porn. His heart was so hardened to his "right" to use porn that it nearly cost me my life. I divorced him for his hard heart, but also because my own heart was hardening to the fact that I married someone who was supposed to be faithful to me, not to images on a computer screen. Where was the sin? The sin was in the porn and the beating - NOT in the divorce.

In verse 9, Jesus says that if anyone sends away (without the benefit of divorce) a spouse, except for marital unfaithfulness and marries another, commits adultery. That's because if you send someone away without divorcing them, you are still married. However, culturally speaking, it could have been that one spouse having an affair could have legally freed the other spouse...the act of adultery was indeed vacating the marriage.

They went on to say that if men can't just send someone away for any reason and without benefit of divorce, it is better to not marry. Indeed, it is hard to stay married and work through adapting to each other and learning to love each other well. It's better not to marry because it's not so easy to justify sending your spouse away for no reason, and it's a hassle to get a legal divorce.

It is the motive behind the divorce that makes it sin. That is the point Jesus was making.

You say

God may hate that. But Malachi doesn't say God hates putting away a spouse without a certificate. It tells us that He hates the putting away of a spouse. That could be done with or without a certificate. Matthew 19 is about the legal divorce, the one in the law of Moses, the kind with a certificate.

I already went through the context of the term "shalach" earlier on this thread:

The term “shalach” I mentioned earlier has nothing to do with divorce, although it is the word used in Malachi. It is also used in the following contexts:

1. Genesis 8:7: (Noah on the Ark) ...of the ark which he had made. And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to…
2. Genesis 24:7: (God giving Abraham the Promised Land) ...Unto thy seed will I give this land; he shall send his angel before thee…
3. Exodus 5:1: (Moses delivering Israel from Egypt) ...the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto...
4. Joshua 6:25: (Rahab hid the Spies) ...day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.
5. 2 Kings 5:10: (Naaman healed) ...of the house of Elisha. And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and ...

The term “apoluo” Jesus used to refer to Malachi is used in the following contexts, and again has nothing to do with legal proceedings:

1. Matthew 14:15: (Jesus feeds the Five Thousand) ...desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go ...
2. Luke 8:38: (Man with/ 2000 plus Demons) ...that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying, Return to thine
3. Luke 13:12: (Woman with the Issue of Blood) ...her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid ...
4. Acts 4:23: (Lame man healed at the Gate Called Beautiful) ...this miracle of healing was shewed. And being let go, they went to their own company, and...
5. Acts 15:33: (Judas & Silas Leaving Antioch) ...And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the...

Both terms were used in the context of simply sending someone out or away, and neither term includes legalities, which "divorce" (with the certificate) requires. If either of them were talking about legal divorce, there are separate, legal terms they would have used, which included both the sending away as well as the legal proceeding.

Jesus points out that God never intended for marriage to end in divorce, but because of sin, he has made concessions for it, and he is basically saying it is better to divorce than to live your marriage in contempt (hard heart).

Link, if you do not feel comfortable with the idea of divorce and remarriage, that is great, and if you never divorce, then you have a marriage the way God intended it to be. But there are many believers whose hearts do become hard. The ex I mentioned who beat me - he was in active ministry at the time. It can happen to anyone. So I am saying that rather than preach the hard legalism that you believe, extend the compassion of the Lord Jesus by encouraging people to reconcile if at all possible, but not condemning them to a lifetime of loneliness if they are divorced.

As married people, we are called to be a platform to live out the ministry of the Lord Jesus - his ministry is reconciliation. Sometimes that can't be done, no matter how hard we try, because we live in a fallen world. I thank God that he has made concessions for people who have to live out the consequences of sin - one of those being divorce.

 

[LinkH]

Link, you mentioned my "theory" is disproved by Matthew 19. Let's look at the passage. This is from the "He Left" thread on the Marriage board:
You say
I already went through the context of the term "shalach" earlier on this thread:



Both terms were used in the context of simply sending someone out or away, and neither term includes legalities, which "divorce" (with the certificate) requires. If either of them were talking about legal divorce, there are separate, legal terms they would have used, which included both the sending away as well as the legal proceeding.

It is clear from the context of Matthew 19 that apoluo can refer to 'putting away' with a legal writing of divorcement. That is the topic the Pharisees were asking Jesus about-- 'to give her a writing of divorcement and to put her away'.

Apoluo does NOT mean to send away without a writing of divorcement. The use of the term 'apoluo' in the passage disproves that idea.


Can you show me where 'shalach' means to send someone away without a writing of divorcement?

Jesus points out that God never intended for marriage to end in divorce, but because of sin, he has made concessions for it, and he is basically saying it is better to divorce than to live your marriage in contempt (hard heart).

But He doesn't say that at all! He said that Moses allowed divorce, but based on the intended purpose at the beginning, he declared if one put away his wife and married another, he committed adultery. And he that married her that is divorced commits adultery.

Link, if you do not feel comfortable with the idea of divorce and remarriage, that is great, and if you never divorce, then you have a marriage the way God intended it to be. But there are many believers whose hearts do become hard.

What if the topic were porn? Jesus said that if a man looks on a woman to lust after her, he has commit adultery with her in his heart. What if someone were arguing that that really meant that it's okay for a man to look at women lustfully because of the hardness of their hearts?

The ex I mentioned who beat me - he was in active ministry at the time. It can happen to anyone. So I am saying that rather than preach the hard legalism that you believe, extend the compassion of the Lord Jesus by encouraging people to reconcile if at all possible, but not condemning them to a lifetime of loneliness if they are divorced.

My heart goes out to you and everyone who has been abused. And I can understand why someone would flee to save their life. David was supposed to be Saul's servant, general, and was supposed to stay with him. But Saul kept trying to kill David, so David left. But he did not betray Saul, and when Saul seemed to repent, David was willing to return. It wasn't a marriage, but there are some principles there to consider.

You could call it legalism. I suppose a self-justifying porn addict might call taking Matthew 5 at face value 'legalism', too. I suppose someone could call taking a hard line against fornicating, physically, 'legalism', too. The issue is not legalism, but what did Jesus actually say, and the line of reasoning so many are putting forth just can't be justified by what our Lord Jesus actually said.

I don't believe divorce is an unforgivable sin, or that it is necessarily a sin for both partners. Sometimes one partner sins. But it would be extremely foolish to redefine what Jesus said to be perceived as merciful or compassionate... and speak contrary to Christ's words. Jesus is the one who said the hard words.