• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Does Yehovah really hate divorce? An alternative perspective

N

NurseMo

Member
Real Person
Female
a Jewish view on Malachi 2:16

Does the Yehovah really hate divorce? – Another view of Malachi 2:16
By Nehemiah Gordon


"For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away (shalach)" (Mal 2:16 [KJV])

This is one of the most mistranslated verses in the Tanach. In Biblical Hebrew "shalach", literally, "sending away", is the standard word for divorce (Dt 24:1). So the way it reads in KJV is that God hates divorce. Let's see how some other translations render this phrase:

"For I hate putting away, saith Jehovah, the God of Israel" (ASV)

"For I detest divorce - said the LORD, the God of Israel" (NJPS)

'"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel' (NIV)

"For I hate divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel" (RSV; NRSV)

All the major translations besides KJV have "I hate divorce" rather than "he hates divorce". If you look in Hebrew you won't find the word "I" or a verbal form which expresses "I". In fact, if you read it in Hebrew, you'll see something quite surprising:

"For he hated to divorce, says YHWH God of Israel..." (NG)

Who is this "he" that hated to divorce? Could it possibly be YHWH? One rule of Biblical Hebrew is that it does not contain "indirect speech". For example, it never has a sentence like: 'Nehemia says he is really tired.' It always has, '"I am really tired", says Nehemia.' If it said, ''Nehemia says he is really tired." it would mean that someone else is tired ("he"), not Nehemia. So if YHWH says, "he hated to divorce" (or even: "he hated divorce"), it could not be YHWH who hates divorce, but some other person being referred to as "he". When all these translations translated "I hate divorce" they were consciously and intentionally changing what it says in Hebrew, creating a new prophecy which does not appear in the book of Malachi. This can be confirmed by reading on in the verse:

"Because he hated to divorce, says YHWH God of Israel, and he covered his garment with corruption, says YHWH of hosts. So be careful for your spirits, do not betray!" (Mal 2:16 [NG])

Another thing YHWH says in this same verse is, "he covered his garment with corruption". Now how come when YHWH says, "he hated to divorce" they changed it in translation to, "I hate divorce"; but when YHWH said, "he covered his garment with corruption" they did not change it to, "I covered my garment with corruption"? Obviously because YHWH would not cover His garment over with corruption (not even metaphorically). In both statements, the "he" is not YHWH but someone else. This someone else both hated divorce and covered his garment with corruption.

So what on earth is going on here? Who is this "he"? Just read the entire context. The answer is right there! In v. 13 Malachi says that Judah has made the altar to weep so that their sacrifices are no longer acceptable. In verse 14 Judah asks what they have done and Malachi responds that YHWH is upset that Judah has "betrayed" the wife of his youth. How did he betray the wife of his youth? This is already explained in vv.10-11:

"(10) Is there not one father to all of us? Did not one God create us all? Why has a man betrayed his brother, desecrating the covenant of our fathers? (11) Judah has betrayed and done an abomination in Israel and Jerusalem, for Judah has desecrated the holy one of YHWH whom he loved and husbanded the daughter of a foreign god."

So this "he", Judah, "betrayed" the wife of his youth by marrying the daughter of a foreign god. Put differently, he married an idolatrous woman.

This is a violation of the covenant of our forefathers which forbids us to marry idolaters (Dt 7:1-4). This is the "betrayal" Malachi is speaking about. But why is this a betrayal to the Israelite wife of his youth? Isn't this just a betrayal to YHWH? Mal 2:16 explains, that because the Judahite hated to divorce "he covered his garment with corruption". In other words, rather than divorce his Israelite wife, giving her the opportunity to remarry and live a normal life, this Judahite, who hated divorce, kept her as a wife while at the same time he married a heathen woman. This is the betrayal of the Judahite man against the Israelite wife of his youth, which makes the altar weep.

So it is not that YHWH hates divorce. It simply does not say that in Mal 2:16. What YHWH hates is a husband who abandons his wife for another.

An abandoned wife is not divorced, so she cannot remarry, but at the same time her husband does not fulfill his husbandly duties to her. So she is stuck in limbo. The abandoned wife of the youth is a theme that appears elsewhere in Scripture. Isa 54:16, says:

"For like a sad and abandoned wife, has YHWH called you, and as a wife of youth having been rejected, says YHWH." (NG)

In this verse Israel is summoned by YHWH as an abandoned wife of youth who was been rejected but is now being taken back by her husband.

It is significant that Mal 2:16 ends, "do not betray!" Whatever this "betrayal" is, YHWH is forbidding us to do it. Could YHWH be forbidding divorce? YHWH wrote in His Torah that divorce is permissible (Dt 24:1-4). In fact, this same passage contain a direct prohibition that YHWH indeed hates, but it is not divorce:

"(1) When a man take a wife and husbands her, and it shall come to pass, if she not find favor in his eyes, for he has found in her a matter of nakedness, then he shall write for her a document of cutting off and place it in her hand and send her away from his house. (2) If she shall go out of his house and go and become another man's wife. (3) And the second husband hates her and writes for her a document of cutting off and places it in her hand and sends her from his house, or if the second husband who took her as a wife dies, (4) The first husband will not be able to take her to be his wife again after he has divorced her for she was defiled, for it is an abomination before YHWH. You shall not cause the land to which YHWH your God gave you as an inherited portion to sin."

We see here that not only is divorce permissible, but the divorced woman is completely free to marry a second husband. The only thing that is forbidden is for a divorced couple to remarry after the woman has been with a second man. By being with a second man, the woman is defiled for the first husband and can never remarry him. To remarry her first husband after she has slept with another man is an abomination to YHWH and brings sin upon the land.

Clearly divorce itself is not abomination and does not bring sin on the land. Only the scenario of remarriage is an abomination. In the Tanach abomination is synonymous with something hated, despised. So based on Dt 24:1-4 YHWH does not hate divorce but rather remarriage of a wife who has been with another man.

It is worth noting that the word "shalach", the biblical Hebrew word for divorce, also appears in regards to Moses wife, Tsiporah the Midanite (Ex 18:2). So Moses, the greatest prophet to ever live, divorced his wife. But he took her back because she had not been with another man after their divorce.

Just based on Dt 24:1-4 we could be certain that Malachi is not saying that YHWH hates divorce because the "betrayal" Malachi is talking about is forbidden by YHWH ("do not betray!"). Malachi could not prophesy an instruction which contradicts something in the Torah because anyone who did that would be a false prophet. In light of this it is curious why so many translations have intentionally changed what it says in Hebrew, putting words into the mouth of YHWH which He never spoke ("I hate divorce"). I suspect that this is Christian influence. Medieval Christians forbade divorce, and this no doubt influenced how they translated this verse in Malachi.

It is worth noting that the Talmudic Rabbis were divided on how to interpret Mal 2:16. Rabbi Yehudah (and later Rashi) interpreted it the way I did above, saying, "If you hate her, you must divorce her" [i.e. and not leave her as an abandoned wife]. On the other hand, Rabbi Yochanan (and later Ibn Ezra) interpreted it to mean that God hates divorce, saying, "He who divorces is hated" (Babylonian Talmud, Gitin 90b). The Rabbinical JPS translation adopts the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan.


Reprinted by permission, Copyright http://www.karaites.info/"

@IshChayil and other Torah-followers, what do you think? If referencing the bible in your response, please keep it within the confounds of the Tanach. Meaning, no New Testament please.
 
I'm an outsider on the Hebrew roots stuff but have been thinking that the "God hates divorce" remark seems out-of-line with much else in scripture. That it could be an error of translation hadn't occurred to me.

As an error, it would seem similar to the whole "husband of one wife" thing, in the sense that it's a verse taken to flatly prohibit something for which God elsewhere gives guidance.

Thanks, @NurseMo.
 
http://www.leavingjesus.net/TC/TorahCreation/Tanakh/divorce.htm

First I want Nehemiah Gordon is one of the worst things to ever happen to the Hebrew Roots/Messianic movement. Where I agree with him that Yeshua was speaking against elevating tradition to the level of scripture, he twists scripture and language to change the nature of Yeshua and His message. As a Karaite he is not a beleiver. Nehemiah Gordon is a false teacher. A tool of the adversary. A deceiver bent on seperating the children of G-d from Yeshua.

For information about him.

https://carm.org/nehemia-gordon

This is an occasion where the translation is correct but the interpretation is solely for His agenda. So as he's telling people that according to his translations Yeshua was not the son he has a correct translation to point at and say see I can properly translate scripture.

For information on Karaite beleifs about marriage, divorce, and women's rights. You should read it for a sect that claims to only following only the written Torah exactly as is and not the teachings of man read their beleifs on divorce. It gives a dose of hypocrisy as it deviates from only the written word as is.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/karaite-marriage/


 
Last edited:
I’m not gonna comment on the man, just make a couple of clarifications. The passage mentioned is Isaiah 54:6 not 54:16. (Small typo)

The passage quoted in Exodus 18:2 does not use the word shalach (Strongs 7961) but rather shilluach (Strongs 7964). Shilluach does come from the root word shalach but there are vital differences.
  1. Shalach is used for either putting away or to indicate the existence of a writing of divorcement.
  2. Shilluach is only used two other times (aside from Moses’) to indicate a dowry given at the beginning of a marriage
  3. In Moses’ case, it was a divorce, but since adultery was not involved Moses had to send her out with her dowry. In this case it was back to her father. IMO, once her father figured out that God was with Moses he negated her demand for divorce and returned her to her husband.
Other than that, I’m pretty much at the same position as he stated. I confess I’m having a hard time understanding how God hates divorce and still gives a writing of divorcement (Jer 3:8). Granted, the only time God is mentioned as divorcing someone is for adultery so maybe thats the caveat that reconciles everything. IF you put your wife away as Judah did without cause then that is treachery and God will judge that. IF you put her away for adultery that is not treachery?
 
Here’s something else to chew on as well that may have a lot of bearing on Zipporah, Ex. 21:10,11, and the concubine that left her husband and went to her fathers house.

Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth 51b

There is, however, another class of woman who is permitted [not to return to her husband] even if she was not seized. And who is that? A woman whose betrothal was a mistaken one,48 and who may, even if her son sits riding on her shoulder, make a declaration of refusal49 [against her husband] and go away.


48. When a condition which remained unfulfilled was attached to it. In such a case the woman may leave her husband without a letter of divorce and she has the status of a feme sole who had never before been married.
49. V. Glos. s.v. mi'un. [Isaiah Trani: This is not to be taken literally. It means simply that she is permitted to marry another man without a bill of divorce].

MI'UN
(Lit., 'refusal'); a declaration by a fatherless girl who has been married off by her mother or brothers under age, that she does not wish to live with her husband. Such a declaration made by her in the presence of a Beth din secures her freedom without the requirement of a Get.


Why would these men allow a woman to leave her husband with her son riding on her shoulders just because of a “mistaken betrothal”?
Leviticus 6:2-5
If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, [like a daughter?] or in fellowship,†[yad tsuwmeth = a pledge of authority] or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour; [about what and how he will provide for her and treat her?]
Or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein:
Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found,
Or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering.

If the man didnt keep his part of the covenant, they looked at it as if he gained his wife through deceit, and thus the man was a covenant breaker/adulterer and had no authority to give or deny a Get/writing of divorcement.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I confess I’m having a hard time understanding how God hates divorce and still gives a writing of divorcement (Jer 3:8).
Click to expand...

I am sure God hated divorcing Judah, but apparently he thought it necessary and by definition (he being God) it was the right thing to do.

Verifyveritas76 said:
Granted, the only time God is mentioned as divorcing someone is for adultery so maybe thats the caveat that reconciles everything.
Click to expand...

True. It is consistant with the more explicit teaching of Jesus later on. What is the downside?

Verifyveritas76 said:
IF you put your wife away as Judah did without cause then that is treachery and God will judge that. IF you put her away for adultery that is not treachery?
Click to expand...

That seems to be the teaching.
 
@Kevin I am very well aware of Nehemia and what he believes. The purpose of this post was to 1. obtain others opinions on his interpretation of Malachi and 2. IF using the Bible to support your opinion, please keep it in the confines of the Old Testament. Nothing more, nothing less. Not only did you not do that, you used your personal bias to attack someone else, quite severely, I might add. It’s as if I asked “what do you think of Obama’s interpretation of X law and if using the law to justify your position, please keep it within the rulings of the Supreme Court” <this is in no way implying the NT is inferior to the OT> instead, I got a response similar to: Obama is the worst thing that has happened to America, he’s not even a US Citizen! (I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist, and I’m certainly not an Obama supporter) and then give a website that discredits him as “proof.” It’s the same spirit/persucatory attitude I get when discussing and living PM. I mean this in the most respectful way possible and I’ve read many of your postings and value some your perspective(s). With that said, I’ll ask you directly: what is your opinion on his interpretation of Malachi? Do you agree/disagree with the Hebrew semantics of I vs he hates divorce and whether it meant YHVH or the Judhite?
 
Last edited:
NurseMo said:
@Kevin I am very well aware of Nehemia and what he believes. The purpose of this post was to 1. obtain others opinions on his interpretation of Malachi and 2. IF using the Bible to support your opinion, please keep it in the confines of the Old Testament. Nothing more, nothing less. Not only did you not do that, you used your personal bias to attack someone else, quite severely, I might add. It’s as if I asked “what do you think of Obama’s interpretation of X law and if using the law to justify your position, please keep it within the rulings of the Supreme Court” <this is in no way implying the NT is inferior to the OT> instead, I got a response similar to: Obama is the worst thing that has happened to America, he’s not even a US Citizen! (I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist, and I’m certainly not an Obama supporter) and then give a website that discredits him as “proof.” It’s the same spirit/persucatory attitude I get when discussing and living PM. I mean this in the most respectful way possible and I’ve read many of your postings and value some your perspective(s). With that said, I’ll ask you directly: what is your opinion on his interpretation of Malachi? Do you agree/disagree with the Hebrew semantics of I vs he hates divorce and whether it meant YHVH or the Judhite?
Click to expand...
Kevin said:
This is an occasion where the translation is correct but the interpretation is solely for His agenda
Click to expand...
I thought I answered your question. He translated it correctly and what he said is right. Then he takes the opportunity to blame Christians for changing the bible midway through his article to only switch gears and blame rabbinic Jews at the end of his article. He does This in an attempt to cause doubt in people's beleifs to lead them astray. This is nothing personal against you. I've sat through a seminar by him and watched videos of his. He's an intelligent man who knows scripture. He just uses it to try to destroy people's faith in Yeshua as the Messiah.

Then rest was me explaining to anyone who may read this who the man is. This way they don't make the mistake that he is a beleiver who is trying to just explain scripture, but a man who wants to divorce beleivers from Yeshua. This way anyone reading doesn't see where he got something correct and buy into his whole spill about Yeshua being just another Rabbi and follow him down the wrong path. Not everybody knows his veiw that Yeshua was a Sadducce.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the heads-up about the author @Kevin . I agree such personal factors should not be the focus of a discussion like this, but it is good to have someone point it out briefly before looking into other writings of the author.

On the topic: this is all highly interesting, I am finding what everyone is writing quite thought-provoking, but have nothing valuable to add yet.
 
Just saw this video, don't like all his illustrations but he summed it up well at the end:
My summary + musings: Marriage was intended to be eternal (as Adam and Eve were not intended to die). All ending of marriage, whether through death or divorce, is therefore ultimately due to sin. And God hates sin. So we can never see divorce as something good. If we divorce, and think it's ok, we're in serious error. BUT if we divorce, look back on it and see it as sinful, repenting of our error - then we're completely forgiven and the slate is wiped clean.

It's God's upside-down Kingdom: assert your innocence and you're found guilty, but acknowledge your guilt and you're found innocent.
 
@Kevin ah! I see. Thank you for clarifying your intent. I obviously didn’t take it that way. I was so interested in the translation (because it was different from everything I’ve been taught) that I forgot his attacks on Christians. I should have edited that out because it distracted from what my question was. I also misread your statement an thought you said “there is an occasion” vs what you really said “this is an occasion” Thank so much! Sorry for the misunderstanding.
 
FollowingHim said:
It's God's upside-down Kingdom: assert your innocence and you're found guilty, but acknowledge your guilt and you're found innocent
Click to expand...
So simple, but devastationly true.
 
The only issue I have with the translation is a matter of semantics I guess.

Malachi 2:16 (OJB)

16 For Hashem Elohei Yisroel saith that He hateth putting away: for it covereth one’s garment with chamas (violence), saith the Hashem Tzva’os: therefore, be shomer of your ruach, that ye deal not treacherously, breaking faith.

Chamas usally means violence (in an unjust way) and sometimes malicious, cruel, wrong, false and unrightous. None of which are in the nature of G-d. Context is keen when translating chamas and a few of the ways It's translated are a stretch. It's also a stretch of etymology to get corruption from chamas. You have to translate false follow the etymology to modern translation to justify using the Latin translation Mar then follow it down to middle english to get corrupt then to the modern translation that only has a superficially similar meaning to the other words chamas is translated as.
 
FollowingHim said:
All ending of marriage, whether through death or divorce, is therefore ultimately due to sin. And God hates sin. So we can never see divorce as something good
Click to expand...

I’d agree with most of this. Yes, God gates sin but he loves justice, judgement and equity.


Though each party has different roles, responsibilities and authority in the marriage, both are considered equal in their role as covenant makers. They each have the ability to accept or reject the terms of the covenant and what they vow.

Thus they each have the right to expect the terms to be fulfilled. This is equity. If the terms are not fulfilled, that is covenant breaking and the injured party has the right to justice. In a best case scenario, the offending party corrects their mistake and restores the covenant. In a worst case scenario, judgement is called for by a third party so that equity can be restored.

As I am still studying this, I may yet find a case where this is not true, but at this point, I have yet to find even one instance where a woman is excluded from the right to equity. Or where if she is petitioning for equity and judgement that she is considered to have sinned somehow by doing so.

Conversely, the scriptures are full of condemnation for covenant breakers and unjust judges who are not giving justice, judgement and equity to the widow (which includes the cast off and refused in Isaiah 54) the fatherless and the stranger.

I kinda wonder if Achan’s wife would have divorced him when he was burying the accursed thing under his tent for adultery/idolatry if she and her children would have been spared Gods wrath.
 
I was pondering this further, and I wonder whether divorce is an 'unclean' thing rather than a 'sin'. There's quite a difference.

@Mark C teaches that 'clean' and 'unclean' is better understood as 'things leading to life' or 'life force', and 'things leading to death' or 'death force'. @IshChayil , is there any validity in this from a language or Jewish perspective? Assuming it's valid:

As God's original plan did not include death, marriage was intended to be eternal. Due to sin, death breaks a marriage. The breaking of a marriage is associated with death. It is therefore 'unclean'. Divorce is an intentional breaking of a marriage, so also associated with death and unclean.

Unclean things are not necessarily sinful, but to be avoided. It is not sinful to be a leper - but should be avoided as 'unclean' and something that leads to death. It is not sinful to handle a dead body, but makes you 'unclean' until you wash etc. And so forth.

If divorce is unclean, we should avoid it by all means possible. We must discern between the clean and unclean, and promote what is clean. But if it happens anyway, despite our best efforts, it's not necessarily a sin. Just far less than ideal.

Does that perspective seem to have merit, or be fatally flawed somewhere?
 
cnystrom said:
I am sure God hated divorcing Judah, but apparently he thought it necessary and by definition (he being God) it was the right thing to do.
Click to expand...
Point of clarification... God has never divorced Judah. It was the house of Israel that He divorced. Very important distinction, foundational to all prophecy.
 
Crazy, serious confirmation to @Kevin 's warning.... I had just finished reading the thread and moved on when @Judgemenot walked in the room and said, 'I have a Facebook thread you need to read about Nehemia Gordon's antimissionary activity.'

True story!
 
I have recently realized that this verse does not say G_d hates divorce. I'm not saying that He doesn't, but that's not what this verse says from what I've been able to see. I'm still uncertain as to what to make of it as I am still researching and learning the topics of divorce, marriage, widows, and widowhood. Currently working on dissecting Isaiah 54. I find it very interesting and revealing.
 
Richard said:
Malachi 2:16 in the Geneva bible says: "If thou hatest her, put her away, saith the L_rd G_d of Israel, yet he covereth the injury under his garment, saith the L_rd of hosts: therefore keep yourselves in your spirit, and transgress not."
Click to expand...

This is very interesting due to the era in which it was translated. It also seems to follow the wording style of Deuteronomy 24:3. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top