God Hates Divorce

[BigDaddy4]

He is right. He's been right for a few pages. Many misunderstand Link thinking he's judgmental, but he's just straightforward. The Bible says what it says, and when it speaks clearly, no amount of Greek-wrangling is gonna make it NOT say it, just to justify someone's lifestyle :-/

None of which is happening here though. Please refrain from injecting erroneous assumptions on motivation.

 

[BigDaddy4]

I have a bit of a different spin on that (I absolutely agree with everything up until "only"). I think there's more to it than *just* sending away w/o the certificate that Jesus found treacherous. IMO.....He (Jesus) was speaking to what it actually looks like for a marriage to be loving (His original creation)....without sin (betrayal.....unfaithfulness). What I mean is.....there are other ways to still be "within the law"......yet, sinning (not being loving.....not being faithful......having loyalty elsewhere)....and, I think that's what Jesus was trying to point out (the higher law of genuine love is what *ought* to be followed). But.....as He recognized....."because of the hardness of hearts"......it's not always how things turn out.....thus, allowances were made for that (writ of divorce).

I'll agree with your "spin"...

 

[BigDaddy4]

...
But if you follow the pro-divorce line of reasoning on the thread, does it follow, logically, that there is no restriction on just dumping your spouse for no good reason,

...

And no one I know of in this thread is saying what you are saying we are saying. Stop letting your mind wander and stay focused on what is actually said.

 

[DZoolander]

Well, to what Link is saying... From everything that I know of the laws of Moses, how "divorce" actually worked in those days, etc...he actually is quite correct. Putting away and divorce were synonymous. We look at things through the filter of our own understanding of things - which includes social phenomenon like "separation before divorce", etc... All that I've ever heard/read on the subject denotes that back in the time of Moses (and the times that Jesus would have been commenting on) - such a thing didn't exist.

You put away your wife? You were divorced. The only qualification would be "with certificate" - which enabled her to remarry. Since that's not what's addressed in Matthew 19, and everyone at that point would've been aware of it, I agree with Link's statement that "putting away encapsulates both lawful divorce that enables remarriage - and one that doesn't/leaves her stranded"

That's simply how it reads.

All other gerrymandering of the texts is getting into what Link also addressed - which is the subjective interpretation of scripture to fit it within your understanding of morality. If you believe the Word to be complete - then that's what it says. God does hate "putting away" - which includes divorce - except in the case where she's cheated on the guy.

So also to Link's point (to me) - that presents you with a moral dilemma. Join my side - or spend your life gerrymandering around with text so you can give the illusion you haven't joined my side (lol).

Half joking - but half not

 

[mkgal1]

In Jewish, separation after betrothal required a full divorce with a certificate, as many commentaries and sermons on the subject point out. The covenant was made before the wedding party after which the bride went to be with her husband. The husband had already paid the bride-price. The bride would usually have received some kind of dowry. A marriage contract would have already been written up. At a certain time, the groom would come get the bride for the party with her company. (Have you heard all these things explaining the parable of the wise and foolish virgins?)

It's interesting because if they weren't living together, since they were just betrothed at the time, he still 'put her away'.... which would indicate the term had more of the sense of legal 'divorce' than just 'separate'. Physically, they wouldn't have had to 'separate' but he wanted to still put her away, which would have required he write her a certificate. It couldn't have meant just kick her out if they weren't living together.

Notice the passage says for him not to forget to take until him Mary his wife. He hadn't taken her yet. He hadn't slept with her yet. They weren't living together yet.

You still seem to be missing my point.....which was, "what made him acquire the description of "righteous" was not wanting to expose Mary to public disgrace." He was willing to preserve her dignity.....at his own sacrifice. IOW.....Joseph was more interested in what was best for Mary.....not himself. *That's* what made him righteous (is how I read that passage). He also believed the Lord's angel (IIRC).........and didn't think that Mary had given up her virginity (another cause for the label of "righteous").

 

[LinkH]

You still seem to be missing my point.....which was, "what made him acquire the description of "righteous" was not wanting to expose Mary to public disgrace." He was willing to preserve her dignity.....at his own sacrifice. IOW.....Joseph was more interested in what was best for Mary.....not himself. *That's* what made him righteous (is how I read that passage).

As a righteous man, he wanted to put her away in a merciful way. But if he'd wanted to dump her without a divorce certificate contrary to the law of Moses, it wouldn't make sense to call him righteous since he would have had in mind violating the law and leaving Mary 'stranded' all her life. If 'put away' means to put away without a divorce certificate, the implicaition is that one can be righteous and have in mind to put away his wife without a certificate.

But we can see plainly from the text that 'put away'/apoluo is used to refer to cases where there is a divorce certificate as well.

He also believed the Lord's angel (IIRC).........and didn't think that Mary had given up her virginity (another cause for the label of "righteous").

That was after the fact, but yes, he was a righteous man, and a man of faith who was able to believe God just based on what an angel told him in a dream. Zacharias saw the angel in the temple when he was awake and responded to unbelief. Mary was quite a young woman of faith, too.

 

[LinkH]

Well, to what Link is saying... From everything that I know of the laws of Moses, how "divorce" actually worked in those days, etc...he actually is quite correct. Putting away and divorce were synonymous. We look at things through the filter of our own understanding of things - which includes social phenomenon like "separation before divorce", etc... All that I've ever heard/read on the subject denotes that back in the time of Moses (and the times that Jesus would have been commenting on) - such a thing didn't exist.

You put away your wife? You were divorced. The only qualification would be "with certificate" - which enabled her to remarry. Since that's not what's addressed in Matthew 19, and everyone at that point would've been aware of it, I agree with Link's statement that "putting away encapsulates both lawful divorce that enables remarriage - and one that doesn't/leaves her stranded"

That's simply how it reads.

All other gerrymandering of the texts is getting into what Link also addressed - which is the subjective interpretation of scripture to fit it within your understanding of morality. If you believe the Word to be complete - then that's what it says. God does hate "putting away" - which includes divorce - except in the case where she's cheated on the guy.

So also to Link's point (to me) - that presents you with a moral dilemma. Join my side - or spend your life gerrymandering around with text so you can give the illusion you haven't joined my side (lol).

Half joking - but half not

I was wondering if you would actually agree with me, that is that the text says that. We differ in how we view the Bible. But at least your view on this seems to be consistent with the other beliefs you hold to.

 

[LinkH]

And no one I know of in this thread is saying what you are saying we are saying. Stop letting your mind wander and stay focused on what is actually said.

If apoluo means to divorce without a certificate, where does the Bible teach against dumping your wife for no good reason... with a certificate.

I can just imagine the guy saying, "Thanks for giving birth to all the babies, and it's too bad about the stretch marks, Honey, but your 45 and are lookin' kind of droopy. I'm in my prime earning years and there is a hot 23 year old at work whose been flirting with me. So here's a certificate for you. I just checked out the DivorceHope website and I'm a-okay. I'll just wait till I'm legal to marry the chick at work. I've got my suitcase packed, and I'll be here at the end of the month for the rest of my things. We can talk about the mortgage then. I'll see you in church Sunday."

Do you see anything wrong with that scenario, in terms of what the Bible teaches?

If apoluo means to divorce without a certificate, then how can you get around the idea that Jesus is saying that if you divorce without a certificate, except it be for fornication, you commit adultery? If you divorce without the certificate because of fornication, why wouldn't that be okay according to your interpretation?

What do you think the 'except it be for fornication' clause means, then?

And how do you deal with the fact that 'apoluo' is used to refer to divorces with certificates in the very passage? ("give her a certificate of divorce and put her away.")

 

[mkgal1]

But we can see plainly from the text that 'put away'/apoluo is used to refer to cases where there is a divorce certificate as well.

I don't disagree with that. That's what made the Pharisees such arrogant men, believing they were righteous for their piety (that was with hardened hearts, though).

 

[mkgal1]

As a righteous man, he wanted to put her away in a merciful way. But if he'd wanted to dump her without a divorce certificate contrary to the law of Moses, it wouldn't make sense to call him righteous since he would have had in mind violating the law and leaving Mary 'stranded' all her life. If 'put away' means to put away without a divorce certificate, the implicaition is that one can be righteous and have in mind to put away his wife without a certificate.

But we can see plainly from the text that 'put away'/apoluo is used to refer to cases where there is a divorce certificate as well.

He wanted to obey the law.....AND do what was right for Mary (prior to hearing from the Lord's angel). One school of thought was that he (Joseph) had such awe for the child that Mary was carrying that he didn't feel worthy of being a part of this holy family.

My lexicon uses "apolusai" (that merely means "set free"...."release"). Couldn't that be an interchangeable word that is used generically (applying to both with and without certificate/provisions)? Like I've said all along, though, it's not the divorce itself (on its own) that God hates (IMO).....it's that there was sin present that destroyed a marriage (He hates that result---which does happen to be divorce). In the case of Joseph and Mary......there was no sin involved.

 

[motherprayer]

He wanted to obey the law.....AND do what was right for Mary (prior to hearing from the Lord's angel). One school of thought was that he (Joseph) had such awe for the child that Mary was carrying that he didn't feel worthy of being a part of this holy family.

My lexicon uses "apolusai" (that merely means "set free"...."release"). Couldn't that be an interchangeable word that is used generically (applying to both with and without certificate/provisions)? Like I've said all along, though, it's not the divorce itself (on its own) that God hates (IMO).....it's that there was sin present that destroyed a marriage (He hates that result---which does happen to be divorce). In the case of Joseph and Mary......there was no sin involved.

Amen! This is so true!

 

[brojeff]

BigDaddy, a cerificate of divorce was given for her protection. You could divorce your wife back then if she burnt your toast that morning. But, in divorcing her, most would believe it was for the reason of adultery which was punishable by stoning. The certificate was to clarify that the divorce was not for adultery. God hates divorce because it causes such pain and suffering for all in involved. His hate for divorce is a response of His love for us. God is not mocked what we sow we will reap. Sometimes we reap what others sow. God is a forgiving God, but that doesn't always stop the consequences of our sowing. God is a God of restoration and healing no matter the source of the wound. By His stripes we are healed.

 

[ShainaBrina]

Wow, separate but not divorce? Then shack up with the new girl without telling her you're still married? Who does that these days? And it surely couldn't have happened back then....

Actually that's exactly what happened and still occasionally happens today in the Jewish community (where it's called the Agunah problem).

In Malachi 2:16 God is angry with the men of Israel who were "putting away" their wives without giving them a certificate of divorce. There were 3 steps to a divorce... write a certificate of divorce, put it into her hand, and send her away. This generally necessitated the return of the bride price/dowry; which always belonged to the wife. What the men of Israel were doing were sending away their wife without the giving them a certificate of divorce. Men at that time were able to have more than one wife however, without a certificate of divorce a woman was unable to remarry leaving her without any means of support.

In current times, a Jewish man can (and sometimes do) obtain a civil divorce and then refuse to grant a 'religious' certificate of divorce that a religious Jewish woman needs to remarry. It is a way to further abuse the ex wife. Taken in context of the whole passage - what God really hates is divorce!

In light of this
Matthew 5:32 KJV 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.

Makes sense doesn't it. If a man puts away his wife without giving her a certificate of divorce he is causing her to commit adultery... women had no means of support other than marriage. So just as when Judah says his sin is greater than Tamar's because his sin (of not giving her to his youngest son) caused her to commit her sin of getting pregnant.

Under the law of Moses a man could put his wife away if he found some unclean thing in her. For example if it was discovered that the marriage was not legal in the first place... eg she was a close relative. The same is true in Mathew where the Greek word inappropriate contenteia is used for fornication.

inappropriate contenteia
illicit sexual intercourse adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11, metaph. the worship of idols of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols.

The only reason, that one is allowed to put away his wife without issuing a certificate of divorce is when the marriage was not legal to begin with. Something more than adultery must be meant here in Matthew as adultery was punishable by death, so divorce is unnecessary.

 

[ShainaBrina]

As a righteous man, he wanted to put her away in a merciful way. But if he'd wanted to dump her without a divorce certificate contrary to the law of Moses, it wouldn't make sense to call him righteous since he would have had in mind violating the law and leaving Mary 'stranded' all her life. If 'put away' means to put away without a divorce certificate, the implicaition is that one can be righteous and have in mind to put away his wife without a certificate.

But we can see plainly from the text that 'put away'/apoluo is used to refer to cases where there is a divorce certificate as well.



That was after the fact, but yes, he was a righteous man, and a man of faith who was able to believe God just based on what an angel told him in a dream. Zacharias saw the angel in the temple when he was awake and responded to unbelief. Mary was quite a young woman of faith, too.

Joseph was betrothed not married to Mary. He had a mind to put her away quietly as apposed to bringing her before the judges and having her stoned. Which would have been her punishment for extra marital relations.

 

[LinkH]

Actually that's exactly what happened and still occasionally happens today in the Jewish community (where it's called the Agunah problem).

In Malachi 2:16 God is angry with the men of Israel who were "putting away" their wives without giving them a certificate of divorce. There were 3 steps to a divorce... write a certificate of divorce, put it into her hand, and send her away. This generally necessitated the return of the bride price/dowry; which always belonged to the wife. What the men of Israel were doing were sending away their wife without the giving them a certificate of divorce. Men at that time were able to have more than one wife however, without a certificate of divorce a woman was unable to remarry leaving her without any means of support.

There is no indication in the Malachi passage that the problem is putting away without a certificate. If God hates putting away, we have no right to assume that God only hates putting away if there is no certificate. We are sure He hates that, too. But there is no reason to think He does not hate the kind of putting away that follows the giving of a certificate of divorce.


In current times, a Jewish man can (and sometimes do) obtain a civil divorce and then refuse to

Matthew 5:32 KJV 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.

Makes sense doesn't it. If a man puts away his wife without giving her a certificate of divorce he is causing her to commit adultery... women had no means of support other than marriage.

I addressed this in great detail in previous posts. But it is completely clear that these words in the Matthew 19 passage are NOT talking about the problem of putting away without a certificate. The Pharisees were asking about the law that allowed a man to 'give her a certificate of divorce and to put her away.' That is the topic Christ addresses-- divorce WITH a certificate. Regarding this law given to Moses, He said 'from the beginning it was not so.' That is His argument. The divorce the Law of Moses allowed because of the hardness of their hearts was not part of the original design. Based on the original design, He said what God has joined together, let not man put assunder. Based on this line of reasoning, He makes His statement about a man divorcing his wife and marrying another being adultery. God joined them together. They are one flesh. Man should not separate them, even with a certificate of divorce which God allowed in the law of Moses due to the hardness of their hearts.

There is also the problem that if the issue addressed were putting away without a certificate, then that makes it out as if Christ is saying that a man may not need to give the wife he puts away a certificate if he puts her away for fornication. That doesn't seem right.

Under the law of Moses a man could put his wife away if he found some unclean thing in her. For example if it was discovered that the marriage was not legal in the first place... eg she was a close relative. The same is true in Mathew where the Greek word inappropriate contenteia is used for fornication.

That is an even more conservative interpretation still, rather than the case where she is not a virgin.

The Romans may have put some practical limitations on Jews who wanted to stone adulterers. I don't know if the ban on capital punishment without Roman approval in force a the crucifixion of Christ was a long-term situation. Jews may have done it as a kind of 'lynch mob' not allowed by the Roman government. When certain Jews tried to beat Paul-- probably to death-- in the temple, or when certain Jews put themselves under a curse to put Paul to death, it was outside of the sanction of the Roman government. I wouldn't be surprised if some Jews substituted putting away for stoning in cases of adultery. And I wouldn't be surprised if the men who brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus wanted to see how Jesus would respond if there were Roman restrictions on stoning adulterers without Roman approval.

inappropriate contenteia
illicit sexual intercourse adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11, metaph. the worship of idols of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols.

That's one understanding of inappropriate contenteia, and one I can certainly see a case for in Acts 15. I know there are theologians who debated about this in theological journals in the 1970s, wether inappropriate contenteia means sex outside of marriage, the Leviticus 18 list, etc.

The only reason, that one is allowed to put away his wife without issuing a certificate of divorce is when the marriage was not legal to begin with. Something more than adultery must be meant here in Matthew as adultery was punishable by death, so divorce is unnecessary.

I am not clear on your stance now. Do you think the issue in Matthew 19 is divorce without a certificate or illegal marriage? Do you think it's both? If so, I'm not sure I completely understand your interpretation of the passage.

 

[mkgal1]

Something more than adultery must be meant here in Matthew as adultery was punishable by death, so divorce is unnecessary.

He had a mind to put her away quietly as opposed to bringing her before the judges and having her stoned. Which would have been her punishment for extra marital relations.

Good points. With Joseph.....I think a key word in that is "quietly" (he didn't want to make a spectacle of Mary....and bring her shame. He truly loved her.....in that there is no sin).

 

[mkgal1]

There is no indication in the Malachi passage that the problem is putting away without a certificate. If God hates putting away, we have no right to assume that God only hates putting away if there is no certificate. We are sure He hates that, too. But there is no reason to think He does not hate the kind of putting away that follows the giving of a certificate of divorce.

That's where historical context comes in. I (personally) don't believe He *only* hates putting away if there is no certificate. Also.....what the passage *does* say is that God refuses the sacrifices of these priests, because they are dealing with their wives "treacherously". What do you believe that means (dealing with them treacherously)? The thesis statement that I see is, "Listen to me and make up your minds to honor my name".....which says to me that they *aren't* honoring God's name (that's the main issue God has with them)....and He tells them *why*.

I have already cursed them, because you have not taken my warning to heart. ~v. 2

ISTM that God, Himself, is ready to recognize the dissolution of the covenant between He and the Levites for their lack of faithfulness to Him (if they continue down this path):

Then at last you will know it was I who sent you this warning so that my covenant with the Levites can continue,” says the LORD of Heaven’s Armies.~v. 4

There's a parallel between their lack of faithfulness to God and their wives (as there often is with everyone):

Here 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.

So......how do you (Link) believe they were unfaithful to their wives?

 

[mkgal1]

I think that, really, the "heart" of that passage (as it relates to the marriages of the priests) is in v. 15:

So guard your heart; remain loyal to the wife of your youth.

 

[ShainaBrina]

Mal 8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. 9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law. 10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? 11 Judah hath dealt treacherously , and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved , and hath married the daughter of a strange god. 12 The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar , out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts. 13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand. 14 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. 15 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. 16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away : for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously . 17 Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say , Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say , Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

Ok so the men of Israel were not behaving well. The were disobeying the laws and they were dealing treacherously against each other... not only that...they were marrying foreign women. And apparently dumping their wives to do so.

Worse still they are ignoring the law and not giving a certificate of divorce! They are dealing treacherously with the wives of their youth. God hates putting away!

Why? because it deals treacherously with the wife. The wife that He made one spirit with them. So they could have Godly seed.

God hates treachery, He hates abuse, He hates false dealings, He hates sin,... Is it a sin to divorce? NO the law allows for that. It is however against the law, and therefor a sin to put away your wife without first giving her a certificate of divorcement.

A certificate of divorcement was protection for the wife, so that a suddenly jealous husband can't accuse her of adultery and have her and her new husband stoned. It's her seal of approval so she can remarry. Without it any union would be adultery and any off spring of that union would be illegitimate and unable to enter the tent of meeting/temple. So it was protection for the children as well, so they could obtain their inheritance, be able to marry themselves etc. It's a really big deal.

(by the way it is ok to put away foreign wives because the marriage was never legal.)

 

[LinkH]

ShainaBrina,

Where do you get from the Malachi passage that they were putting away their wives without a certificate? I don't see anything that indicates that in the passage. We know they were putting them away. Whether they gave them certificates or not, we don't know. We do know that God hates putting away wives, and that can be done with or without a certificate.

MkGal1,

I believe these men were being treacherous and unfaithful by 'dumping' their wives who had been faithful to them. I don't believe it had to be done without a certificate to be treacherous or unfaithful. They were supposed to love their wives, not put them away.