• 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

Thus they each have the right to expect the terms to be fulfilled.

But it is more than simply a contract. When Jesus says, "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." he is describing a permanent spiritual union created by God. It is now a whole nother thing. You are now in a spiritual relationship that represents Christ and the Church. Your expectations are no longer a factor. What is important is your obedience, living up to your responsibilities and performing your role to the best of your ability, or die trying.
 
@NurseMo I saw Nehemia Gordon at the top of your post and stopped reading. I’ve forced my way through enough of his garbage to not be able to stomach any more .... Nehemia Gordon, not only is he not a believer in the Messiah, he is constantly given a platform among Hebrew roots groups to speak and they love him simply because he attacks Rabbinical Judaism (and therefore Messianic Judaism to a certain extent by proxy) this furthers the wedge between Messianic believers and Hebrew roots folks (not to mention Nehemiah’s weird sacred name saying and bizarre pronunciation and continual lies about “having found an old book of Matthew in Hebrew” etc etc christians send me more money please...
Proverbs has something to say about how G-d feels about one who stirs up enmity between brothers...

@FollowingHim neat idea about divorce being unclean. Sometimes in judaism it is required when sin is not present...azhkenazi Jews are encouraged to divorce if the woman proves to be barren as polygamy was made very hard by the Rabbi Gershom ban. The idea being it is a positive mitzvah to have children but not to stay married.
Even this model still fits your idea about divorce being unclean because there are situations where uncleaness (impurity) is unavoidable Ie someone in your apartment complex dies, airplane flies over a cemetery, etc.

I have not heard of the concept in Jewish circles of divorce being unclean but it makes a lot of sense.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes in judaism it is required when sin is not present...azhkenazi Jews are encouraged to divorce if the woman proves to be barren as polygamy was made very hard by the Rabbi Gershom ban. The idea being it is a positive mitzvah to have children but not to stay married.
That does illustrate that they see divorce as being less than purely sinful, and I agree it does align with divorce being "unclean" rather than "sinful", so is useful context. Thankyou.

At the same time, it's a classic example of "making void the word of God by your tradition"... Whether or not God "hates" divorce, He's clearly not particularly enthusiastic about it - but he has no problem with polygamy. So they are encouraged to do something that is most likely displeasing to God in order to comply with the traditions of man. That's not an anti-Jewish statement, since the Christian church does it just as often, it's just one more item to add to a long list of illustrations of how humans tend to place the approval of man above the approval of God.
 
Your expectations are no longer a factor. What is important is your obedience, living up to your responsibilities and performing your role to the best of your ability, or die trying.
I need to get my bearings and figure out what thread and forum I'm on. Am I north or south of the Grace and Torah line.

So Chris, this Obedience is to which law or command that prohibits divorce. If your saying the teaching there is no divorce what about 3 verses latter when an exception is made by Yeshua then in 1 Corinthians 7:15 when Paul makes and exception.

What's the difference between G-d uniting something and man uniting something? A covenant. What's the exception that Yeshua made about divorce? Covenant breaking. Whats the exception that Paul gives for divorce? Married to a nonbelievers (someone out of covenant) who doenst want to be in a union with someone in covenant with G-d. So are all marriages covenant based. There are things that wife's and husbands do that break covenant. They're althroughout the Tanahk. Malachi 2:6 is a good start. So if your acting treacherously towards eachother or cloaking yourself in violence towards eachother, guess what, your breaking covenant.
 
@IshChayil and others......I didn't realize I posted something from somebody who elicited such negative emotions! Lesson learned. Ok, how about this @IshChayil,
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: '[John] says he is really tired.' It always has, '"I am really tired", says [John].' If it said, ''[John] says he is really tired." it would mean that someone else is tired ("he"), not [John]. 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".

Yes or no?
 
Last edited:
You are now in a spiritual relationship that represents Christ and the Church. Your expectations are no longer a factor.
While I agree that biblical marriage between believers does example the relationship of Christ and the church, to say that expectations are no longer a factor seems wrong on multiple levels.

Christ has the expectation that if we take his name that we will obey his commandments because we love him. That because we are bought with a price we will serve no other, that we will trust in his finished work for our covering but in response to this covering we will walk worthy of our calling and we will do good works and thru trials and tests that he puts us through that we will be conformed and transformed into his image. That He is our Lord and Master and we are his bond servants and bond maids as we have been bought with a price.

We as believers in covenant with Him have certain expectations as well. He has promised to supply all of our needs according to his riches in Glory. He has promised to never leave us nor forsake us. He has promised that if we will covenant with him that he will stand for us before the Judge and be our Advocate. He has promised that thru him we have access to the Father and all of the blessings and privileges associated with being part of His family. He has promised that if we draw nigh to him that he will draw nigh to us. He has promised us a comforter that will perform certain functions for us in our preparation for the wedding and many other promises.

All of these promises naturally generate expectations. They also provide a great comparison between the spiritual union and the physical union. There are very specific reasons why a bride should have certain expectations and make certain promises. There are even more very specific reasons why a groom should have certain expectations and make certain promises. And why the trespass of breaking these vows and failing to perform basic foundational duties equals covenant breaking or treachery and has very drastic penalties spiritually and physically for the parties who are the covenant breakers.
 
I need to get my bearings and figure out what thread and forum I'm on. Am I north or south of the Grace and Torah line.
That's funny, right there.. a poke at all my friends on here... funny how the Torah is relevant in sorting out marriage, but maybe not in discussing day of worship.... sometimes I just laugh. So, @Kevin 's observation tickled me.
 
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?
I believe having sex with your wife makes you unclean until sundown.
 
@IshChayil and others......I didn't realize I posted something from somebody who elicited such negative emotions! Lesson learned. Ok, how about this @IshChayil,


Yes or no?
Hey no emotions over here toward you, just don't like to see anti-missionaries quoted over here.

For your yes/no question, if you force me to answer Yes/No jury style, then "no".

Here's the verse which is often over-referenced/leaned on regarding divorce:
כִּֽי־שָׂנֵ֣א שַׁלַּ֗ח אָמַ֤ר יְהוָה֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְכִסָּ֤ה חָמָס֙ עַל־לְבוּשׁ֔וֹ אָמַ֖ר יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֑וֹת וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּ֥ם בְּרוּחֲכֶ֖ם וְלֹ֥א תִבְגֹּֽדוּ׃ ס
Mal 2:16
Here is my literal translation (bold means there is emphasis in the Hebrew which does not always get translated into English due to awkwardness in English if not using a style marker like bold). Italics means these words are not in the Hebrew but are provided in the English to make it make sense; I'm inferring them.

"For the one who hates his wife and sends her away, Adonai G-d of Israel says, "He covered with violence in addition to his clothing"; Adonai of legions says, "You shall indeed guard your spirits and never change clothes."

explanation:
It does NOT say "I hate". See the word in red, in order to say "I hate" in Biblical Hebrew we would have seen: שַֹנֵאְתִי sanēʾtī but instead the text only says שָׂנֵ֣א sanēʾ "he hated" which flows better in English here to say "one who hates". Technical stuff: it's an infinitive without the lamedh which means it gets translated as a participle, or an imperative and occasionally as a concept. My gut was to translated it as a participle so I did and sanity checked myself by checking how the ancient Septuagint translated it: μισήσας misēsas (participle).

שַׁלַּ֗ח šallaḥ "to send out"; this is an intensive verbal form (piel) of the regular verb שלח šālaḥ meaning "send"
In syntax where we want to express divorce, it is as @Kevin stated used in conjunction with "give a writing of divorce" or often this "send out" verb is left out and we just see "give a writing of divorce". It is, however, still possible (and in context here likely) that this is meant to convey divorce. I just elected to be absolutely literal in my translation.
I understand that many translations want to say "I hate" and even the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (premier critical Hebrew text put out by the German Bible Society) has this word marked as a possible scribal error:
prb l שׂנאתִי
Meaning "probably I hate"

I prefer to not accept theories of textual corruption when they can be understood differently other than just the need of translational tradition to say something else.

The "change clothes" verb here implies "act treacherously" I just wanted you all to see what's happening with the Hebrew under the hood (we are talking about dressing up in violence (which can also mean falsity, as in a false witness) then one of the words for betray is used which is based on the word begged (clothing).
********************** it gets deeper get out now if this language stuff is too boring************
So what does our pal the Greek Septuagint say? How did the ancient rabbis translate this stuff into Greek a couple centuries before Yeshua showed up on the scene?
ἀλλὰ ἐὰν μισήσας ἐξαποστείλῃς, λέγει Κύριος ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, καὶ καλύψει ἀσέβεια ἐπὶ τὰ ἐνθυμήματά σου, λέγει Κύριος Παντοκράτωρ. καὶ φυλάξασθε ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ὑμῶν καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐνκαταλίπητε,
Swete, H. B. (1909). The Old Testament in Greek: According to the Septuagint. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

My literal translation:
If then, hating you may send out your wife, L-rd, the G-d of Israel says, "and he will hide impiety concerning your thoughts"; L-rd Almigty says, "and you guard! your spirit so that you may not abandon your wife"

"may send" because this is the subjunctive mood, a speculative mood in Greek
"may not" same reason as above
I added your wife where it seemed implied by context.

Hope this helps in justifying my answer of "no" to your question.
 
@IshChayil no offense taken! I didn’t intend to have it sound that way in my reply to you and my apologies if I did. I was just trying to get to the meat of my “real” question as directly and simply as I could.

Thank you so much for the breakdown!
 
While I agree that biblical marriage between believers does example the relationship of Christ and the church, to say that expectations are no longer a factor seems wrong on multiple levels.

Probably because I did not explain myself adequately. Perhaps Jewish marriage was a simple contract that could be broken with a certificate, but it seems to me that Christian marriage has taken marriage to a whole new level of symbolism and permanance.

"Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

1. God has joined them.
2. No one is supposed to separate them.

It seems to me that #2 especially applies to the married couple. They are not supposed to seperate themselves. It says nothing about as long as all parts of the contract are kept or anything along those lines. Clearly Jesus is describing a permanent relationship.

Of course both parties will have expectations going into the marriage. However, since it is no longer a contract, but a permanent relationship, those expectations are useless as expectations. Unlike a contract you do not get an out if your partner does not keep up their end of the deal. God has joined you together permanently for better or worse.

Likewise the relationship between Christ and the Church is a permanent relationship.

Christ has the expectation that if we take his name that we will obey his commandments because we love him.

But we do not. We sin and we fail. And yet the relationship remains. It is a permanent relationship.

We as believers in covenant with Him have certain expectations as well. He has promised to supply all of our needs according to his riches in Glory. He has promised to never leave us nor forsake us. He has promised that if we will covenant with him that he will stand for us before the Judge and be our Advocate. He has promised that thru him we have access to the Father and all of the blessings and privileges associated with being part of His family. He has promised that if we draw nigh to him that he will draw nigh to us. He has promised us a comforter that will perform certain functions for us in our preparation for the wedding and many other promises.

Right. Which he never fails at performing. It is a permanent relationship.

Surely you are not suggesting that any marriage where a husband does not fully model Christ is therefore defunt? No man could live up to that standard and no marriage would survive.

No, clearly husbands are to model Christ to the best of their ability, and marriages are supposed to be models of Christ and the Church which is a permanent relationship. It is not like a contract where if you break the terms then it is then defunct. We are a vine and branches. We are one being now. We take the body and blood of Christ in communion because we are one with him, which is our only hope for salvation.[/QUOTE]
 
Christian marriage has taken marriage to a whole new level of symbolism and permanance.

"Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

1. God has joined them.
2. No one is supposed to separate them.

1 Corinthians 7:14-15

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.”

But if the unbeliever leaves, let them go, The believing brother or sister is not bound in such a case. G-d has called you to live in peace.

Here is a beleiver in a Christian who is married or a "Christian marriage" (if you disagree, please give scripture that defines what a Christian marriage is) and the spouse is sanctified by the beleiver or their children would be unclean, a reference back to Torah. The seperation and sanctfication of G-ds people. The grafting of Gentile and Jew through faith into a covenant with G-d. G-ds marriage to Jews and Gentiles.

Are you saying G-d made a mistake in the way He married Israel and Judah, or the way He married Israel and Judah is lesser than the way in which He married the Gentile?

Probably because I did not explain myself adequately. Perhaps Jewish marriage was a simple contract that could be broken with a certificate, but it seems to me that Christian marriage has taken marriage to a whole new level of symbolism and permanance.
Legalistic justification for condemnation bias? Opinion. Show in scripture where it says this.
But we do not. We sin and we fail. And yet the relationship remains. It is a permanent relationship.
Permanent relationship that last through all sin, can't not be broken. What about apostasy and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the only unforgivable sins?

You over looked the exceptions given by Yeshua and Paul in your statement.
 
Probably because I did not explain myself adequately. Perhaps Jewish marriage was a simple contract that could be broken with a certificate, but it seems to me that Christian marriage has taken marriage to a whole new level of symbolism and permanance.

"Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

1. God has joined them.
2. No one is supposed to separate them.

It seems to me that #2 especially applies to the married couple. They are not supposed to seperate themselves. It says nothing about as long as all parts of the contract are kept or anything along those lines. Clearly Jesus is describing a permanent relationship.

Of course both parties will have expectations going into the marriage. However, since it is no longer a contract, but a permanent relationship, those expectations are useless as expectations. Unlike a contract you do not get an out if your partner does not keep up their end of the deal. God has joined you together permanently for better or worse.

Likewise the relationship between Christ and the Church is a permanent relationship.



But we do not. We sin and we fail. And yet the relationship remains. It is a permanent relationship.



Right. Which he never fails at performing. It is a permanent relationship.

Surely you are not suggesting that any marriage where a husband does not fully model Christ is therefore defunt? No man could live up to that standard and no marriage would survive.

No, clearly husbands are to model Christ to the best of their ability, and marriages are supposed to be models of Christ and the Church which is a permanent relationship. It is not like a contract where if you break the terms then it is then defunct. We are a vine and branches. We are one being now. We take the body and blood of Christ in communion because we are one with him, which is our only hope for salvation.
[/QUOTE]
BRuh-illliant! Yes that was written in a fabulous sing-song falsetto.
 
1 Corinthians 7:14-15

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.”

But if the unbeliever leaves, let them go, The believing brother or sister is not bound in such a case. G-d has called you to live in peace.

Here is a beleiver in a Christian who is married or a "Christian marriage" (if you disagree, please give scripture that defines what a Christian marriage is) and the spouse is sanctified by the beleiver or their children would be unclean, a reference back to Torah. The seperation and sanctfication of G-ds people. The grafting of Gentile and Jew through faith into a covenant with G-d. G-ds marriage to Jews and Gentiles.

Are you saying G-d made a mistake in the way He married Israel and Judah, or the way He married Israel and Judah is lesser than the way in which He married the Gentile?


Legalistic justification for condemnation bias? Opinion. Show in scripture where it says this.

Permanent relationship that last through all sin, can't not be broken. What about apostasy and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the only unforgivable sins?

You over looked the exceptions given by Yeshua and Paul in your statement.
I can't speak for Brother Nystrom, but I'm going to anyway. I think you're missing what he's saying, or at least you're going after all of the side issues around the main point. "What God has joined, let no one separate." That's a big deal. A very big deal. I would go so far as to say that it might not be forbidding the separation as saying that it's not possible to separate. I'm not sure about that but it's feasible. So I think Brother Nystrom is saying what Christ Himself pretty much said, "From the beginning it was not so, but for the hardness of your hearts..."
In other words, there may be some wiggle room in there somewhere, but it's not very much and it's not going to be something the faithful would ever be looking to utilize. A rough demand for proof is not dealing with all that was in his post. There is a LOT of scripture that makes it very clear that marriage is very serious and ending one is a very bad idea that carries with it hard consequences. I don't think anyone can really argue against that.
 
We're all in agreeance divorce should not be an easy decision. It should cause us the same pain it caused Adonai. Yeshua said It was because of the hardness of our hearts were given Divorce. He then reiterates the reasons given in not only Torah but all throughout the Tanahk for acceptable divorce Adultery which covers both the physical act and spiritual act of covenant breaking. Even when Israel and Judah break covenant with G-d, his divorce of Judah wasn't an knee jerk imediate reaction.

Then we have Paul give an exception for unbelievers it had ramifications. Apostates are unbeleviers.

If we are not to seperate what G-d has joined, either there are marriages G-d has not joined or there are exceptions, the arguement is not with me but Paul and Yeshua.

Making absolute statements that marriage is permanent with no way to seperate doesnt line up with scripture.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top