Divorce and Remarriage

[Amanah]

Divorce and Remarriage: Does God Hate Divorce?

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. (Malachi 2:16 KJV)

Anyone that has engaged the topic of marriage, divorce and remarriage (MDR) has either heard or used this verse. In most cases, from my perspective, it is misused. Many anti MDR advocates will throw out the phrase "God hates divorce" to prove that divorce and remarriage is a sin. As will be demonstrated in this blog, that is misleading at best.

Does Malachi 2:16 teach that God hates divorce? Furthermore, does it teach that divorce is a sin? Ultimately does it teach that all remarriage is sinful? I am going to argue in this blog post that the answer to each of the above questions is no.

God Hates Divorce

I will be refuting that "God hates divorce" is either a biblical phrase or means that divorce is sinful. Firstly I am going to deal with the idea that it means that divorce is sinful. Secondly I will deal with whether or not it is a biblical statement.

Is Divorce Sinful?

Does the phrase "God hates divorce" based on Malachi 2:16 teach that divorce is sinful? The answer is, no! Then what could it possibly mean? Am I saying that God actually likes divorce? The phrase neither means that God likes divorce nor that divorce is sinful. Like many issues, its not as simple as an either-or. Many times there is a third, or even fourth option. Such is the case here.

"God hates divorce" cannot mean that all divorce is sinful. How can I say that with such confidence? Because God himself divorced his wife Israel (Jeremiah 3:8). If all divorce is sinful, then it was a sin for God to initiate his divorce. This would add a whole new layer to the Could Jesus Sin? debate. No one will claim that God sinned. Therefore, whatever Malachi 2:16 means it cannot mean that all divorce is sinful.

So what could the phrase possibly mean? For anyone to say that they hate something does not mean that they think the thing they hate is immoral. The following is an extreme example: I hate anchovies. This by no means suggests that I think eating anchovies are immoral. It just means that I don't like them. Obviously God's hatred for divorce is much more significant than my hatred for a tiny fish. But the point is that we often hate things at are morally neutral. We even hate things that are morally good. Does anyone besides me hate to pay bills? Does anyone besides me hate to correct your kids? While we hate to do them, they are necessary actions. If Malachi 2:16 teaches that God hates divorce, then I would argue that while he hated it, it was a necessary and moral response an unrepentant adulterous wife. As a divorced man, I can say truthfully that I hate divorce. I can say confidently that I—and others who have suffered divorce—hate divorce more than those who have never been divorced.

What Malachi 2:16 Actually Says

Malachi 2:16 does not say as is often quoted that "God hates divorce." It says God hates "putting away." There is a difference between "divorce" and "putting away". I am going to introduce a concept here that I will flesh out in more detail in later blogs. I realize that this concept will be strange and difficult for many of my readers to wrap their heads around. But I ask that you open your mind and consider what I am about to say.

The argument for the distinction between "divorced" and "put away" is found in Deuteronomy 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. (Deuteronomy 24:1 KJV)

Notice carefully the progression in this text: write her a bill of divorcement, and give it into her hand, and send her out of his house. The bill of divorcement is separate and distinct from sending out (putting away). It is possible to put away one's spouse without divorcing them. And men in Israel were doing just that. When they put away their wives without a bill divorcement, they were putting them in a position that they could not remarry. And if they did remarry they would be guilty of adultery. So Moses commanded them to not just put them away but to also give them a bill of divorcement (Matthew 19:7). If she received a bill of divorcement when she was put away then she was free to remarry (Deuteronomy 24:2).

Can you see the injustice of putting away a woman and not giving her a bill of divorcement? Yes? So did God. When the men of Israel put away their wives with out divorcing them God said they were dealing "treacherously" with their wives (Malachi 2:14). God hated putting away without a bill of divorcement—not divorce. Now you know why I stated earlier that it is misleading to say that "God hates divorce." So, does God hate divorce? I am sure he does in the sense that it broke his heart that Israel was unfaithful. But that was not the issue that Malachi 2:16 was addressing. So the answer is, the Bible never states that God hates divorce!

http://calvinismmyway.blogspot.com/2...-god-hate.html

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't mind personal examples and references. There's a difference between using them as part of the discussion, and using them just to slander.

Give us a break already with this. No slander buddy boy, I told you to leave this alone. Don't go another further. But not you, you aren't smart. Because what you believe is so flipped out, from page 5, I knew you would bury yourself.
No slander here Poppy, all this burning wreckage is on your head.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

What part of prove it don't you understand? Do anyone ever say prove it, where you live? You said that the early church never sought an innocent party? Jesus had a woman who was caught in adultery, He let her go because there was no proof of the adultery. Because the witnesses were required to bring the male with the female. Especially since she was caught in the VERY ACT.

In reference to remarriage after divorce, the church almost universally considered remarriage sin.

Jeremiah 3:8 so God fell from Grace? God sinned by handing His wife a bill of divorcement? Because she was an adultress? Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was written to cause Israel to sin? Ezra 10:2-4 which was the trespass? The marriages or the divorces? We are told the marriages were unlawful. This might come as a total surprise to you, but the early church used the OT as their Bible. I don't see where you have a precedent for your soteriology?

Category fallacy. According to the stipulations of the Old Covenant, God was within the bounds of the covenant to divorce Israel.

We are not God. Wives are not OT Israel. And we are not even functioning under that covenant.

So, tell me again? Why can't you stop the adultery? Paul said that if a man join to a prostitute they are one flesh? So are the multiple interactions with prostitutes down at their local temple unbreakable unions? They must be, according to your theology.

Again, it's about more than what one does with their genitals.

The adultery is an ontological reality that goes far deeper than the act of consummation that makes two one flesh. Once that act is committed, it establishes an indissoluble union. Now it is about an ontological state of being. The union itself is adulterous because it adulterates God's intention for the first union, adding a union with another. Even if the couple divorces, now both the first and the second unions remain. So, the second divorce doesn't change the state of being. It is something that cannot be changed rather they remain married or become divorced. It can only be forgiven. And only after forgiveness can the grace and blessing of God flow. But one cannot attain forgiveness if one is unwilling to even confess that they are in an indissoluble state of sin.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Page 5, post #49

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...3&postcount=49

You brought your personal issues into the discussion. No one asked, no one requested, no one mentioned anything before you brought it up.

To make a plea and ask that the topic be discussed now without personal references, is like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.

I didn't present a plea that the topic be discussed without personal references.

I only reminded our elder that they are not necessary for the continuation of the discussion.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

So you can continue living in adultery? Where's the exception clause in the Bible for that?

I love AFF! I learn new things every day.



What other sins aren't unforgiveable in that you can continue to do them and be okay as long as you've spit, slobbered, sobbed and confessed it at least once? (Before going right back to doing it again

Let me ask something that might help clarify.

How does one repent of the sin of divorce and remarriage when the second bond is just as indissoluble as the first?












By confessing the sin, gaining forgiveness, honoring the new and binding covenant made, and committing to never divorce and remarry again.

Repentance does mean not committing the same sin again, right?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Why do you suspect that the Gospels of Mark and Luke omit the alleged "exception clause"?

And why did Matthew use the term "fornication" in reference to sexual unfaithfulness, if the couple were in a consummated marriage?

Matthew 19:9 "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."

1.) The word "fornication" is not solely for pre-martial sex. The word, coming from "porneia" means "promiscuity of any (every) type." The Greek also translates as "sexual immorality," which includes (as noted above) any kind of sexual promiscuity.

2.) """"The express exception (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9) in the case of one put away on account of adultery did not belong to this place: for in that case it is not the husband but the unfaithful party (wife) who by the very act separates her own self from him.""""

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/bengel/luke/16.htm

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Jesus told the adulterous woman GO AND SIN NO MORE!!!!!!

Chris, if all second marriages are sinful adulterous unions then they should all be dissolved. As per Ezra 10:2-4

Jesus raised the bar. Ezra 10:2-4 is too low a standard.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

He didn't reference genitals.

Then why post "You seem to be obsessed with the frequency in which one uses their genitals."?

You have been the most vocal on AFF about people who mischaracterize you or take something out of context or change a word when restating something you posted.

So why would you post something so blatantly false? I mean, for a guy who complains about this as much as you do...

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

If what you posted is true and the man was the innocent party, I don't believe they sinned by getting married.

Of course not. That's the popular view. And with every passing decade, the view becomes expanded to include more and more justifying reasons to divorce and remarry.

Did his wife commit "fornication" or "adultery"?

Because Jesus stated that the exception was only with regards to "fornication". Meaning, the theoretical couple in question hadn't consummated the marriage yet. They were betrothed. (See Joseph's consideration of putting away Mary privily as an example.)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

In reference to remarriage after divorce, the church almost universally considered remarriage sin.

They also believed the earth was in the center of our universe and the sun orbited around us. I didn't ask you to give me an ecclesial history lesson before the Great Schism. I asked you to PROVE that the early church didn't look for the innocent party. Because the God sure was the innocent party. Hosea was the innocent party

Originally Posted by Aquila

Category fallacy. According to the stipulations of the Old Covenant, God was within the bounds of the covenant to divorce Israel.

Chris, since you only use the Bible as an atheist does, you miss what actually is going on. God didn't just put away His wife, but instructed His prophet to marry a prostitute to go through the same thing He was going through with Israel. Chris, there are innocent parties. Unless you believe that rape victims were asking for it, or that females and males who have killed their young children were warranted to do so because of the behavior of their small children. Chris, God didn't only set a precedent, but had his prophet go through the same thing to show Israel a lesson.

Originally Posted by Aquila

We are not God. Wives are not OT Israel. And we are not even functioning under that covenant.

Chris, not functioning under that covenant? Is that convenient out for you guys? Yet, have no problem going back to the OT to defend an argument whenever it is in your favor? Chris, the whole conception of divorce and remarriage that Jesus even is referring is from Deuteronomy 241-4, and Hosea. Chris, I'm real sorry, that you foolishly get into these discussions. But Chris, if the we are not functioning under that covenant then why are you even pointing to what Jesus said to first century Judeans concerning their law? Little mixed up buddy?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, it's about more than what one does with their genitals.

From the reasons why you told us that you hook up with your girlfriend it would seem so. Human weakness? Your words, not mine.

Originally Posted by Aquila

The adultery is an ontological reality that goes far deeper than the act of consummation that makes two one flesh. Once that act is committed, it establishes an indissoluble union. Now it is about an ontological state of being. The union itself is adulterous because it adulterates God's intention for the first union, adding a union with another. Even if the couple divorces, now both the first and the second unions remain. So, the second divorce doesn't change the state of being. It is something that cannot be changed rather they remain married or become divorced. It can only be forgiven. And only after forgiveness can the grace and blessing of God flow. But one cannot attain forgiveness if one is unwilling to even confess that they are in an indissoluble state of sin.

You are in an indissoluble state of sin with your girlfriend?

Chris?