Are women more in favor of divorce than men?

[ValleyGal]

Just so this doesn't get off topic and escalate into a debate on divorce, for a clear Biblical study of divorce, here's a link:
Divorce Book | Divorced Christain | Christian Divorce Advice | Divorce Guilt

 

[Avniel]

I think it's part of the structure of our society. There was a time in history that men were pretty selfish and did things for their own self serving purpose(not all men of course think social climate). There was no safety nets or laws that protected women so a great deal of them stayed in relationships with people that didn't show them love. When women were able to get from under the economic state of oppression there were positives as well as negative(similarly to all movements for rights).

The positives of course were the liberation of women, the gaining of political power, better education opportunities....the list goes on. One of the negatives in my opinion was that women now adopted the same selfish attitude that men have. Instead of taking the opportunities and advancing a more community centered culture women assimilated into the selfishness that capitalism tends to bring. So now we have women that are just as selfish as men instead of the possibility of one selfish spouse there is a 50/50 chance that there will be two.

It reminds me of that argument "if a man has sex with several women he's the man but when a woman does it she's labeled." That is wrong and there is a double standard most people understand and acknowledge this aspect. However women seem to adopt this attitude of "if it's good when a man does it then I can too" but the reality is it's equally as disgusting. I mean for a person, men or women, to have that little respect for their body is disgusting. So there really isn't a reason to participate in that type of lifestyle unless you are morally inferior and are kind of disgusting.

I think the same theory applies to divorce. The reality is that men shouldn't have treated women the way they did. Women should have had rights from the jump, but just because men in our society are more individualized doesn't give women the right to be as individualized as them. When we have christian women that believe things such as meekness and being humble are negative there is going to be high divorce rates.

The root of divorce is selfishness I personally believe that more women file for divorce because we live in a society that allows things like selfishness and promote it.

It's funny I see men on the CF talk about trying to be meeker, kinder, sacrifice more for their love one's, encourage other men to work things out with their spouse. I typically don't see that from women that post here there is a few.

I think there are ideals that lead to stats like this and the only way to reverse is to understand the following:
1) Being assertive and being a jerk are two different things.
2) Meekness is not weakness it actually is empowering.
3) Falling out of love is a choice.
4) Being selfish isn't being a strong woman it's being a weak one.
5) If it's culturally accepted for men to act in a negative ungodly manner just because it's accepted doesn't mean it's not ungodly....

 

[LinkH]

Just so this doesn't get off topic and escalate into a debate on divorce, for a clear Biblical study of divorce, here's a link:
Divorce Book | Divorced Christain | Christian Divorce Advice | Divorce Guilt

The quote from Matthew above debunks much of the argument on this website.

Don't let a lot of verbage and Greek words distract you from following the simple argument from the text. There are a lot of websites offering sophistry about the Greek language from supposed experts these days.

The difference between the words 'divorce' and 'put away' is not the key to Matthew 19. Context shows us that. They really put out some sophistry on this site.

I would warn anyone to be careful with the divorcehope site and others like it.

 

[ValleyGal]

The quote from Matthew is actually examined at length at the Divorce Hope website.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

There is no need for a whole thread. A simple quote of the passage using the KJV, which preserves the translation 'put away' should clear up the issue.

Here the Pharisees clearly mention the legal divorce according to Moses--the kind with the certificate of divorce. They are not asking about the illegal kind, without a certificate.

Here it is clear that the type of putting away that Christ addresses is the legal kind, the kind that Moses specifically allowed. Notice he appeals to 'the beginning' for his argument that follows. He had already referred to the Genesis account of two being one flesh earlier in the chapter, hence 'from the beginning it was not so.

Again, the context is the legal putting away that Moses allowed, not the illegal type without a certificate.

The theory put forth by the divorcehope website ignores the cultural and historical context, since we can read the record of Hillel and Shammai's discussion on the topic of the circumstances under which a divorce is allowed under Mosaic law. One might conjecture that there were men dumping their wives without certificates to keep the dowry. But there is no reason to think that the Pharisees addressing Jesus would be opposed to that, at least in theory. This is not the topic they asked Jesus about, though. They asked him about the legal divorce with a certificate. Christ responded, quite clearly, about the legal divorce with a certificate.

First, I know about 'divorcehope', but I don't know what they talk about there. I've never been on the site myself. Second, the only place where divorce (apostasion) id discussed is by the Pharisees in 19:7. ALL other references are to 'putting away' (apolyo), both in 19:7 and thereafter by Christ. The Pharisees were trying to entrap him by asking two different things, but Christ saw their intent and answered their real question. Otherwise, he would have dealt with divorce (apostasion).

 

[CounselorForChrist]

I think both sexes are more in favor of it because of how the media has shoved the subject down everyones throats. Or more so they are more willing to think about the subject... even if they won't divorce.

 

[Autumnleaf]

I think both sexes are more in favor of it because of how the media has shoved the subject down everyones throats. Or more so they are more willing to think about the subject... even if they won't divorce.

Look, its my life. And I deserve what I want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhjLgksbID0

 

[ImaginaryDay]

The difference between the words 'divorce' and 'put away' is not the key to Matthew 19. Context shows us that.

Then why doesn't Christ deal with divorce in the passage? He only answers the question of wives being 'put away', not divorced. The Pharisees brought up two subjects. Christ only addressed ONE.

 

[LinkH]

Then why doesn't Christ deal with divorce in the passage? He only answers the question of wives being 'put away', not divorced. The Pharisees brought up two subjects. Christ only addressed ONE.

The Bible uses 'put away' to refer to divorce. To make it legal, a certificate was given.

Words have different meanings in different contexts. In English, I can say "I went to the amusement park, but was separated from my friends in a crowd." That just means I wasn't with the group anymore. But if someone says, "He separated from his wife", that implies something about their marital relationship, maybe even legal status and tax filing status. It's the same word 'separated', but used in different context.

When we read the NT and OT, in formal equivalence translations divorce is called 'putting away' or something similar. I suppose one could put away or send his wife away without divorce, but that wouldn't be legal according to Judaism.

Within Judaism, there were different groups. There were the Pharisees who were a religious purity society. They followed the teaching of Torah-lawyers they called 'rabbis' (though one is our Rabbi, even Christ.) Later, the declarations of these men would be written in the Mishna in the second century, and later in the Talmud. Another branch of the religion or influence in the religion was the high priest's group, the Saducee or Zadokite group. They believed in the first five books of the Bible and didn't necessarily accept the writings of the prophet or the traditions of the Pharisees. The scribes seemed to have been more allied with the Pharisees. After the temple was destroyed, the Pharisees took over the religion and most of Judaism, the European version of it at least, was an offshoot of the Pharisee's religion. The temple cult was gone, and the legal cult remained.

From what we know of the time, the Pharisees would have strongly believed in the need for a certificate of divorce. The divorce hope site asserts the problem was divorces without certificates. This doesn't fit what we know of history. But look at this quote from the Mishna from this website:

THREE kinds of writ of divorce are not valid, but, if the woman remarried, the children are legitimate. If a man wrote the writ in his own hand, but there are no witnesses to it; there is no date on it, but there are witnesses; there is a date, but only one witness. Those are the three kinds of writ of divorce that are not valid, but, if the woman remarried, the children are legitimate. Rabbi Eliezer says: Though there are no signatures of witnesses on the writ, but it was given to the woman before two witnesses; it is valid, and she may collect her marriage allotment from mortgaged property, because the witnesses sign only as a precaution.

The House of Shamai says: A man must not divorce his wife unless he has found her unfaithful. As was said: (Deuteronomy xxiv, 1) Because he hath found some uncleanness in her. The House of Hillel says: He may divorce her if she only spoiled a dish for him because it was said: Uncleanness in anything. Rabbi Akiba says: He may divorce her if he found another that is more beautiful than his wife, because it was said: (Deut. xxiv, 1) If it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes.

Hillel was Gamaliel's grandfather, the one who brought much of the influence of legal studies from Babylon to Jerusalem. Shamai was a contemporary of his. They headed the two main schools of thought, and their families intermarried.

The issues the debated over was under what circumstances could a man dump his wife. That was the ongoing debate. Both sides clearly believed a divorce certificate was necessary. You can see more details from the Mishna on the same site. They even made legal determinations about sending messengers with certificates of divorce:

IF A man sent a writ of divorce to his wife and then overtook the messenger or sent another messenger to him and declared: The writ I gave to thee is void; it becomes void.
Witnesses sign a document as a precaution, for the general good.

Maybe there were bad Jewish men back then who didn't give divorce certificates or keep up their wives. But that wasn't considered legal. The Pharisees would not have debated about that. They would have debated about the two big schools of thought on divorce. It makes sense that they were asking Jesus to give His opinion on the ongoing debate over whether Shamai or Hillel or someone else was right about divorce.

The divorcehope site also argues that Malachi is a key to understanding Matthew. The site asserts that the problem in Malachi is divorcing without a certificate. But there is no reason to assume that was the case. We are talking about 400 years later, after the Pharisees, a Torah-purity society came to power during the time of the Maccabees, after Hillel gained influenced in society.

Here is a quote from divorcehope's page on Matthew 19

They said to Him, 'Why then did Moses COMMAND to give a Certificate of Divorce, AND to put her away (separate)?'

These Pharisees still don't seem to understand why they have to give a Certificate of Divorce when they separate from their wives!

The comment makes no sense. The Pharisees are disagreeing with Jesus' statement,

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Judaism required a divorce in the case of adultery. Hillel, the more influential Pharisaical school of thought, allowed for divorce for ruining a meal. The Pharisees felt this was justified based on Torah, so they responded to Jesus' restriction by asking why Moses commanded that a certificate of divorce to put her away. The command is that if the man puts away his wife, he must give her a certificate of divorce.

The author of the website seems to be asserting here that the Pharisees were trying to figure out why they would have to give a certificate of divorce, like they were saying, "Moses commanded it, but why?" and not wanting to do it. That is just such an unPharisaical way of thinking. It also ignores the context that this question is actually a response to Jesus' statement limiting divorce. They are engaging with Christ's statement, not saying, "Duh? Why do we have to give certificates to divorce someone? Duh. Why did Moses command that?"

And here the divorcehope people/person twists what Jesus says with their lying commentary in brackets.

He said to them, “Moses, BECAUSE OF THE HARDNESS OF YOUR HEARTS, PERMITTED you to separate from (put away) your wives [without a Certificate of Divorce].

This is error. Moses did NOT allow them to put away their wives without a certificate of divorce. In fact, Moses commanded a certificate of divorce if a man put away his wife. Deuteronomy shows us that. The Pharisees had just referred to that. Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts, allowed them to put away their wives. But the type he allowed was with a certificate.

But from the beginning [being separated WITHOUT a Certificate of Divorce] was not so.

Again, more error in the brackets. From the beginning, the 'putting away' was not so. Because it was said, "Two shall be one flesh.' Christ, here, is referring to something that predates Moses, which shows God's plan for marriage. The law that allowed divorce was a concession for the hardness of their hearts. Christ was calling the people to a higher standard, which predated the concession given through Moses.

And I say to you, whoever separates from (puts away) his wife [without a Certificate of Divorce], except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery;

If someone accepts this load of garbage, what do they do with the exception clause? Is it saying if your wife cheats on you, you are allowed to marry someone else without giving her a divorce certificate? Is that why 'except for sexual immorality' is there? That's about the dumbest interpretation of the clause I've seen. The whole divorcehope interpretation is pretty dumb, actually.

And it leads to the very type of Pharisaical immorality when it comes to divorce that Jesus is forbidding. Read the Talmud a little. I was reading in it that if a man marries a woman who gained some flaw after engagement, he could divorce her without paying the money from the marriage contract. They said he could divorce her over having a mole, having one breast larger than another, and if she were a 'screamer'. There were a whole list of things. Of course, Hillel, and later Akiba, were allowing divorce for any ol' reason, but they had some extra situations where a man didn't have to pay a divorce settlement.

The divorcehope website makes Christ's teaching to be less moral than Hillel's, who said a man could divorce his wife for ruining a meal.

If that were the case, would the disciples have really said if such be the case with a man and his wife, it is better for a man not to marry?

and whoever marries her who is separated (put away) [from her husband without a Certificate of Divorce] commits adultery

What a nonsense interpretation. The Pharisees already believed, knew, absolutely, without any doubt, that a man who married a woman who was kicked out of her house without a certificate committed adultery. There was no debate there. But 'put away' does not exclude those legally put away, with certificates-- the very type of putting away the Pharisees brought up in the passage. Jesus is talking about the legal putting away, the kind done with a certificate, here.

Even though Moses allowed it, putting away was just a concession for the hardness of their hearts. But the original intention was for two to be one flesh. What God has joined together, let not man separate. So the man who puts away his wife, except it be for fornication, and marries another commits adultery. The putting away is the legal kind, the kind Moses allowed.

Moses did not allow putting away a wife without a certificate of divorce. I believe it's Deuteronomy 22. He COMMANDED that the certificate of divorce be given.

'Put away' does not mean 'put away from her husband without a certificate of divorce.' The Pharisees just made it clear by the way they used the word that the woman who is put away with a certificate is put away. So the idea of not having a certificate is not inherent in the word translated 'put away.' This quote is an example of sophistry. So is the websites treatment of the Greek word.

Don't be gullible enough just to read and believe the website.

 

[ValleyGal]

Link, I did not even finish reading your post, but got drawn in simply by your idea that there is no reason to think that the passage in Malachi is not talking about divorce. Well, yes, there is. It was written in Hebrew. The word is "shalach." The word itself is different from the word "divorce" in Hebrew. If Malachi was talking about divorce, he would have used the Hebrew word for divorce. Instead, he used "shalach" which means to send away; the equivalent in Greek is "apoluo" which means to send away and was used in reference to sending out the 12 and other times. It was never used in terms of divorce, but only in sending someone away....without the legal implication. There is another word for divorce in Greek, too, and all this has not been translated well even in the equivalency English texts.

Moses did indeed command that a certificate of divorce be given, which is why Jesus had the conversation with the Pharisees...there were men sending away their wives without the certificate, and that led to a social oppression for women, causing her to commit adultery if she was not legally divorced. The same applies today - if a separated person shacks up with another (or marries them), they are in adultery because the one is still married. Once they are divorced, they are no longer bound, so remarriage is not adultery.

It's not about being gullible about that one website. I've studied this subject at length for myself - long before I ever found the divorcehope website.

 

[LinkH]

Link, I did not even finish reading your post, but got drawn in simply by your idea that there is no reason to think that the passage in Malachi is not talking about divorce. Well, yes, there is. It was written in Hebrew. The word is "shalach." The word itself is different from the word "divorce" in Hebrew. If Malachi was talking about divorce, he would have used the Hebrew word for divorce. Instead, he used "shalach" which means to send away; the equivalent in Greek is "apoluo" which means to send away and was used in reference to sending out the 12 and other times. It was never used in terms of divorce, but only in sending someone away.

You are mistaken. Shalach and apoluo are used repeatedly to refer to sending away WITH a certificate throughout the Bible, in the passage where Moses gives the law about the divorce certificate, in Matthew 19, and elsewhere. This is the sophistry I am talking about, that you are repeating. These words do NOT mean 'putting away without a certificate.' These words are also used in contexts that refer to divorce WITH a certificate, also.

It is possible the words could be used in context where one send a wife away with no certificate. But the idea of 'no certificate' does not inhere in either of the words. This is clear from their use in context. The entire 'divorcehope' argument relies on this false premise.

...without the legal implication. There is another word for divorce in Greek, too, and all this has not been translated well even in the equivalency English texts.

Fallacious reasoning. If we applied the same principle to our own language, we'd talk like Mr. Spok.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

You are mistaken. Shalach and apoluo are used repeatedly to refer to sending away WITH a certificate throughout the Bible, in the passage where Moses gives the law about the divorce certificate, in Matthew 19, and elsewhere. This is the sophistry I am talking about, that you are repeating. These words do NOT mean 'putting away without a certificate.' These words are also used in contexts that refer to divorce WITH a certificate, also.

Don't drink the kool-aid, kids...

 

[ValleyGal]

Link, if that were the case, there would not be a separate word used for divorce with a certificate. Shalach and apoluo are not the same word as the word used for divorce in either language. Similarly to English, the languages have a different word for divorce as they do for separation. Shalach and apoluo are "separation" - not divorce. If the authors intended "divorce", other words in Hebrew and Greek would have been used.

However....I will not derail this thread. I will not derail this thread. I will not......

 

[LinkH]

Link, if that were the case, there would not be a separate word used for divorce with a certificate.

You don't treat English that way.

Someone goes to the doctor for a stomach ache, and says, "My stomach hurts."

The doctor rsays to his nurse, "Well, I know it can't be nausea because there is a specific word in English for nausea, so it must be something else."

But it could be nausea. "My stomach hurts" includes nausea and a number of other things.

In Matthew 19, 'put away' is used to refer to those put away with certificates. It is clear from the Pharisee's question. In Deuteronomy 24, the Hebrew equivalent is used to refer to sending away a woman with a certificate.

Deu. 24
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.


She's got a certificate. She is still 'sent away.' And she is a 'sent away' woman, even though the divorce is legal.

Languages do not correspond on a word for word basis. 'Divorce' may be our go-to word in English. Hebrew focused on the fact the woman was sent away in their choice of words, rather than the legal document she had received.

Women sent away with a legal document were 'put away' also.

Matthew 1 says that 'Joseph, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example was minded to put her away privily.'

Joseph was thinking about giving Mary a legal divorce with a certificate, not illegally expelling her. It makes no sense to say he was just in one breath, and then say he wanted to violate Torah in the next.

Shalach and apoluo are not the same word as the word used for divorce in either language. Similarly to English, the languages have a different word for divorce as they do for separation. Shalach and apoluo are "separation" - not divorce. If the authors intended "divorce", other words in Hebrew and Greek would have been used.

Emphasis mine. Any time someone says, "If the author's intended X, they would have used the more specific Hebrew/Greek term Y", the argument is at its best weak, and usually just a bad argument.

In English, there are a lot of occasions where we use common words that everyone is familiar with and understands, when we could have used much more specific words.

 

[LinkH]

Don't drink the kool-aid, kids...

I think you guys already have.

 

[Inkachu]

If you don't keep your women in line, dagnabbit, you're theologically unsound. All of you.

 

[LinkH]

If you don't keep your women in line, dagnabbit, you're theologically unsound. All of you.

I don't see what that has to do with the OP or what's been shared in the thread recently. The Pharisees believed it was really easy for a man to dump a wife if he gave her a certificate. In the immediate context, He was keeping the men in line.

 

[LinkH]

Sorryif what I've posted was a derail. It's related to the general topic somewhat of divorce, but more with a passage about it being easy for men to get rid of their wives, so not related in that respect.

I've created a new thread.

 

[ValleyGal]

Link, you can send someone away WITH a divorce certificate - as per OT law OR you can send someone away WITHOUT a divorce certificate - as per the practice Jesus was addressing in Matthew. There is a difference. Sending someone away with the divorce certificate has it's own word in both Hebrew and Greek. Sending someone away without the divorce certificate is "shalach" and "apoluo."

 

[seeingeyes]

What is the point of this thread?