God Hates Divorce

[mkgal1]

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.

I agree. I also believe they could have been unloving......yet, still have been within the law (providing them basic food....shelter)....yet, not been within the moral law of God's love. *That's* what I believe God was upset with......their misrepresentation of Him (in their general dealings with all ).

 

[mkgal1]

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?


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.

I completely agree with that. Well said.

 

[ShainaBrina]

Because that is the definition of putting away.

Deuteronomy 24:1 KJV
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. (or put away)

It would not have been treacherous for the men to either divorce their wives nor to take on a second wife. Both were allowed under the Law of Moses. However I have explained the serious consequences of having been put away.

And because the word used in Mal is shalach which means put away and not the word for divorce/ divorcement which is K@riythuwth.

 

[ValleyGal]

Link, we do know that the men in Malachi were putting away their wives without benefit of divorce by the use of the term "shalach". This has already been discussed - you just won't acknowledge its meaning and validity.

 

[mkgal1]

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.

[/FONT]

This is one of the posts that Valley Girl posted earlier about the definitions.

 

[LinkH]

Link, we do know that the men in Malachi were putting away their wives without benefit of divorce by the use of the term "shalach". This has already been discussed - you just won't acknowledge its meaning and validity.

The reason I won't 'acknowledge' it is because no one has presented any evidence at all that backs up the idea that either the Hebrew or Greek word in question means 'put away without a certificate.' In fact, the passages of scripture about divorce CALL PUTTING AWAY WITH A CERTIFICIATE 'PUTTING AWAY'. Look at Deuteronomy 24 one. The woman is 'shalach'ed WITH A CERTIFICATE.

The Pharisees in Matthew 24 ask Jesus why Moses commanded that the man give her a certificate and put her away.

So it's 100% clear that 'put away' is used in these contexts to refer to putting away with a certificate. I suppose someone could put away/send away/dismiss his wife without a certificate back then--illegally of course-- but either way it's putting away.

If God says He hates putting away, what is your authority for saying He only hates it when there is no certificate? I can't find that in the Bible.

If I tell you I hate jelly beans, would you conclude I like black jelly beans? No. If I told you I hated jelly beans, you should conclude that I hate black ones too unless I said otherwise.

 

[LinkH]

Mkgal1,
They also used the word in the context of marriage to refer to putting away wives. Religious Jews did that with a certificate of divorce. Both words are used in scripture to refer to putting away WITH a certificate of divorce. I know of no specific case in scripture where either word was used to refer to putting wives without a certificate, and I haven't seen anyone show such a thing that I recall in this thread.

 

[ValleyGal]

The reason I won't 'acknowledge' it is because no one has presented any evidence at all that backs up the idea that either the Hebrew or Greek word in question means 'put away without a certificate.' In fact, the passages of scripture about divorce CALL PUTTING AWAY WITH A CERTIFICIATE 'PUTTING AWAY'. Look at Deuteronomy 24 one. The woman is 'shalach'ed WITH A CERTIFICATE.

The Pharisees in Matthew 24 ask Jesus why Moses commanded that the man give her a certificate and put her away.

So it's 100% clear that 'put away' is used in these contexts to refer to putting away with a certificate. I suppose someone could put away/send away/dismiss his wife without a certificate back then--illegally of course-- but either way it's putting away.

If God says He hates putting away, what is your authority for saying He only hates it when there is no certificate? I can't find that in the Bible.

If I tell you I hate jelly beans, would you conclude I like black jelly beans? No. If I told you I hated jelly beans, you should conclude that I hate black ones too unless I said otherwise.

From BlueLetterBible:

Deut. 24 words - refer to Hebrew/Greek Lexicon
vvs 1, 3
her a certificate = cepher
of divorce = keriythuwth
...
and sends = shalach

There is a clear distinction in these verses that there is a difference between sending someone away and sending someone away with divorce papers. Both of these verses refer to both giving her a certificate of divorce AND sending her away.

The verse in Malachi does not use the words for certificate OR divorce, meaning that God hates the sending away without the divorce certificate.

 

[LinkH]

From BlueLetterBible:

Deut. 24 words - refer to Hebrew/Greek Lexicon
vvs 1, 3
her a certificate = cepher
of divorce = keriythuwth
...
and sends = shalach

There is a clear distinction in these verses that there is a difference between sending someone away and sending someone away with divorce papers. Both of these verses refer to both giving her a certificate of divorce AND sending her away.

The verse in Malachi does not use the words for certificate OR divorce, meaning that God hates the sending away without the divorce certificate.

That last paragraph is an illogical conclusion. The words for 'send away' in Hebrew and Greek are used in contexts where the woman was sent away with a certificate. Malachi doesn't tell us if there was a certificate, and I can't find anywhere in the passage where God corrects them for not having certificates.

In Matthew 19, Christ's comments about divorce and remarriage and adultery follow a question about why Moses allowed the man to give his wife a certificate of divorcement AND to put her away. He replied to a question about putting away WITH a certificate. He addresses what Moses allowed and says that it was because of the hardness of their hearts. He basis His decree on the way it was 'at the beginning' quoting from the Adam and Eve passage. The topic is clearly not putting away without a certificate.

If we study language, one thing we need to keep in mind is that words do not have a 1 to 1 correspondence with other languages. The further apart languages are, it seems this is even more the case. Words have a 'range of meaning' and only part of that word may translate into another language. Words can also refer to social constructs that may be different between cultures.

In America, there is 'separation' where a couple has troubles, may be considering divorce and want to separate their property legal for tax purposes or want to cool down and consider reconciliation. Then there is 'divorce' where the government recognizes a dissolution of the marriage.

The Jews didn't have these social constructs exactly the same way we did. I suppose a wife who ran off was considered rebellious. The man who didn't care for his wife and kicked her out instead of providing for her wasn't living up to his responsibilities according to Torah. So much for 'separation.' The man could put away his wife. To do it legally according to their understanding of the law, he first had to give her a certificate. That's how they put wives away back then.

The fact that some Jews today will divorce their wives or suffer from unilateral divorce under a modern legal system, and won't give a Jewish divorce certificate does not mean that this was the situation that Jesus addressed about 2000 years ago. From what I've read, the Romans did not regulate customs of marriage among non-Romans, and that would have been handled among the Jews according to local custom, which meant by Jewish law.

 

[LinkH]

ShainaBrina,

Even Moses did not say a man could put away his wife for every cause. It was for some 'uncleanness' depending on how you interpret Deuteronomy 24:1.

The Pharisees had different ideas of what this word meant. The house of Hillel took it to mean all kinds of minor transgressions like burning bread. The house of Shammai, the other major school of thought, took it to mean something serious like adultery.

A man could give his wife a certificate, but that doesn't mean he is obeying, "Love thy neighbor".

 

[ValleyGal]

Wow, Link, in spite of overwhelming evidence you still claim there is no evidence. Excuse me while I shake the dust from my feet.

 

[LinkH]

Wow, Link, in spite of overwhelming evidence you still claim there is no evidence. Excuse me while I shake the dust from my feet.

People usually shake the dust from their feet before they leave.

The definitions you presented don't support your arguments. Your arguments don't make sense when looking at the words in context.

Men who gave their wives certificates also sent them away. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

 

[mkgal1]

People usually shake the dust from their feet before they leave.

I think that's her point.

The definitions you presented don't support your arguments. Your arguments don't make sense when looking at the words in context.

Men who gave their wives certificates also sent them away. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Think of it this way (since you said it's not making sense to you)......for one thing....the sending away *can be* and often, *was* mutually exclusive from the writ of divorce. (The definitions that VG provided show that the word used simply means....."send away"......"dismiss", etc. You're right that the reverse isn't true (that the writ of divorce isn't separate from sending away when the writ of divorce is given in hand. IOW....men weren't giving writs of divorce and *not* sending away).

For what reason would a man divorce his wife then? As it's been said.....if she committed adultery----there would be no need for divorce. The punishment for that was stoning.

 

[ValleyGal]

Men also sent their wives away without the certificate, so it is necessary to tease these concepts apart in scripture. So the concepts are mutually exclusive, the way they are in English - separating versus divorcing.

Yes I am shaking the dust, and I am leaving the discussion - again. The definitions do support my arguments, and they make sense to [almost] everyone but you. So there is no reason to stay.

 

[LinkH]

I think that's her point.

I was just a little skeptical.

For what reason would a man divorce his wife then? As it's been said.....if she committed adultery----there would be no need for divorce. The punishment for that was stoning.

What were the requirements for stoning? The Old Testament forbade anyone from being put to death except by the testimony of two or three witnesses. How many times to a couple of adulterers make sure there are witnesses around? My guess is back then, they would try not to be seen. What if there were only one witness?

What if the husband saw his wife making out with a man, but not having intercourse, and there were no other witnesses? What if they were doing more, but he didn't have witnesses?

There were also cases where the man became jealous of his wife because he sensed or believed that she was unfaithful. He was to go to the temple, the wife was to drink a certain concoction, and if she was guilty the curse and the symptoms of it would come on her, but if not it would not occur. So he takes her to the temple, she's guilty, and her stomach swells up and she has the symptoms of a guilty woman. He concludes she is guilty of adultery, but there are not two witnesses.

Then consider under Roman law, the Jewish leaders told Pilate it was not lawful for them to put a man to death. Now certain Jews would lynch people they felt were in violation of the law. Some of them put an oath on themselves to kill Paul, but his relatives got wind of it and reported it to the Roman authorities who protected him. When Paul mentioned 'Gentiles' in his testimony in the temple, it hit a nerve with those who falsely thought he brought Gentiles into the temple, and they started beating him. The Roman authorities intervened.

My point is the Jews may not have been able to put people to death according to Roman law, even if the Torah required it, and may have resorted to divorce in some of these cases. Maybe the men who brought the woman accused of being caught in the very act of adultery wanted to see how He would react given the situation with the Romans.

There were a lot of cases if Israel were attempting to follow Torah where a woman could be guilty of adultery or something just short of the physical act and there not be enough evidence to stone her, where her husband might consider it 'uncleanness' and wish to have her put away. If he cared about her and were merciful, he might decline to bring charges and just have her put away.

 

[LinkH]

Men also sent their wives away without the certificate, so it is necessary to tease these concepts apart in scripture. So the concepts are mutually exclusive, the way they are in English - separating versus divorcing.

The problem is the way the terms are used in scripture aren't consistent with the way you are 'teasing' apart meanings. 'Sent away' is used in both the New and Old Testaments for cases of sending away a wife WITH a certificate. I don't think anyone on here has even shown a case where the word is clearly used to refer to putting away without a certificate! You are just assuming it in Malachi (and BigDaddy assumes it--contrary to the context with proves otherwise--in Matthew.)

Deuteronomy 24, which introduces the subject even uses the term to refer to putting away with a certificate. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees use the Greek term to putting away with a certificate when they refer back to Moses.

The key passages on the subject show the opposite of what you are arguing.

I don't see where most people agree. I see two strong proponents of the idea. And at least 2 or 3 others disagree.

Yes I am shaking the dust, and I am leaving the discussion - again.

We'll see.

 

[mkgal1]

Basically.....what I was getting at when I asked about reasons *why* a man would be *wanting* to divorce (or just send away) his wife was that any reason I could think of would be that he loved something/some*one* more than his wife. For that reason.....I think God *allows* divorce as an act of compassion. It's not God's plan that two would go separate ways.......but, because of our freedom....it happens.

I believe when Jesus was responding to the Pharisees.....His response was worded in such a way as to not allow them to take His words as Him condoning their disposable-type marriages----yet, allowing for the law of Moses to be upheld.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

The problem is the way the terms are used in scripture aren't consistent with the way you are 'teasing' apart meanings. 'Sent away' is used in both the New and Old Testaments for cases of sending away a wife WITH a certificate. I don't think anyone on here has even shown a case where the word is clearly used to refer to putting away without a certificate! You are just assuming it in Malachi (and BigDaddy assumes it--contrary to the context with proves otherwise--in Matthew.)

Deuteronomy 24, which introduces the subject even uses the term to refer to putting away with a certificate. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees use the Greek term to putting away with a certificate when they refer back to Moses.

The key passages on the subject show the opposite of what you are arguing.

I don't see where most people agree. I see two strong proponents of the idea. And at least 2 or 3 others disagree.

Link, since you like hypotheticals so much here's one for you to illustrate what everyone has been trying for weeks now to get across to you, but you fail to see.

Let's say my Uncle Leroy (I don't really have an Uncle Leroy, but let's say I do...) has a wife named 'Sally'. He tells her one day "get out woman, you burned the toast so I'm sending you away from here. I don't want to divorce you, though. You just go live with your momma until I decide what to do with you". So Sally goes to live with her momma. Leroy forgets all about Sally for years and years, leaving her destitute because momma can't support her.

Now, what Uncle Leroy did to Sally was to SHALACH her!!!!!!! He SENT HER AWAY without a certificate of divorce, leaving her destitute. GOD HATES SHALACH!

Edit: Link, let me ask you another question. Your theory through this whole thing has been that Jews during OT/NT times were sending away their wives with a certificate of divorce, and that was the context in all cases, correct? Do you propose, then, that all Jews were necessarily following the Law of Moses in that regard? Or is it possible that some were not following the Law in the manner that they should have in regards to divorce?

 

[LinkH]

Link, since you like hypotheticals so much here's one for you to illustrate what everyone has been trying for weeks now to get across to you, but you fail to see.

Let's say my Uncle Leroy (I don't really have an Uncle Leroy, but let's say I do...) has a wife named 'Sally'. He tells her one day "get out woman, you burned the toast so I'm sending you away from here. I don't want to divorce you, though. You just go live with your momma until I decide what to do with you". So Sally goes to live with her momma. Leroy forgets all about Sally for years and years, leaving her destitute because momma can't support her.

Now, what Uncle Leroy did to Sally was to SHALACH her!!!!!!! He SENT HER AWAY without a certificate of divorce, leaving her destitute. GOD HATES SHALACH!

Your hypothecial uncle certainly would have 'shalached' your aunt in this case.

But let's say the same thing happened, and instead of sending your aunt out with a certificate, he gives her a unilaterial divorce and a divorce certificate written up according to the highest standards of Pharisaical Orthodox Judaism and sent your aunt away.

He still 'shalached' her, even with the certificate. God hates shalaching wives.

I think we agree it's wrong to kick a wife out and not support her for burning the toast. Do you think it's right to give a wife a legal divorce certificate and send her away for burning the toast?

The thing is, in scripture, we see 'shalach' and 'apoluo' used to refer to putting away wives WITH a certificate. Deuteronomy 24:1 talks about shalaching a wife WITH a certificate of divorce.

In Matthew 19, the Pharisees, referring back to Deuteronomy 24:1 ask about 'apoluo'ing a wife WITH a certificate of divorce, and this is the context in which Christ gives His teaching about divorce, remarriage, and adultery.

Btw, can you show me scripture where 'shalach' or 'apoluo' are used in contexts where it is crystal clear that there is no certificate? Can you actually demonstrate from the text where it is clear that shalach is going on without a certificate... not just assert that this is the case?

 

[LinkH]

Basically.....what I was getting at when I asked about reasons *why* a man would be *wanting* to divorce (or just send away) his wife was that any reason I could think of would be that he loved something/some*one* more than his wife. For that reason.....I think God *allows* divorce as an act of compassion. It's not God's plan that two would go separate ways.......but, because of our freedom....it happens.

The second scenario in Deuteronomy 24 is of a man sending away the wife because he hates here. That's another reason right there people divorce besides the man loving another woman more. He could just hate his wife. That hatred is also contrary to God's law.

I believe when Jesus was responding to the Pharisees.....His response was worded in such a way as to not allow them to take His words as Him condoning their disposable-type marriages----yet, allowing for the law of Moses to be upheld.

How is possible to interpret Christ's instructions in such a way that it allows for divorce for any case 'except it be for fornication'?

Christ' forbidding divorce did not overthrow or destroy the law of Moses. The law of Moses did not say 'thou shalt divorce thy wife.' In Ezra, certain men sent away their wives who had engaged in illegal marriages. But if the marriage is legal according to God's law, there was not requirement to divorce, no command 'thou shalt divorce thy wife.'

If a man follows the law of Christ, on this, by not divorcing his wife, he is not disobeying the law of Moses. But Christ did present a higher standard than Moses. He taught people to return to the original intention at the beginning, not what was allowed for the hardness of men's hearts. The Spirit would soon be poured out along with a grew outpouring of grace, which would enable men to will and to do according to God's will.