Why is Divorce so easy in the Bible?

[Cap]

I know that there are plenty of discussions here in regards to what creates a marriage. And the real point that comes to my mind is that it is rather complicated, emotionally and spiritually (oh, and physically too of course), something individuals should seriously consider when creating a relationship because it is important.

But, in contrast, it appears, that to end a marriage it is rather simply. Write on a piece of paper, I DIVORCE YOU and hand it to the wife. (With that also could be included, does that have to be court ordered state sponsored divorce, or just a piece of paper.)

I understand that the reasons for the divorce are complicated and left up to ones interruption of the Word for them, but the fact is, right or wrong, correct of incorrect, the Word of God specifically says, to get a divorce all a man has to do is write it on a piece of paper and hand it to the wife.

Then comes the question, does only the man have that right? What if, Exodus 21:10
“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.” is not honored by the husband. What can the wife do about it?

And if she does get a divorce granted, is she forever bound to have to live by the lack the law was established to prevent? But, that's another topic.

Just curious.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I know that there are plenty of discussions here in regards to what creates a marriage. And the real point that comes to my mind is that it is rather complicated, emotionally and spiritually (oh, and physically too of course), something individuals should seriously consider when creating a relationship because it is important.

But, in contrast, it appears, that to end a marriage it is rather simply. Write on a piece of paper, I DIVORCE YOU and hand it to the wife. (With that also could be included, does that have to be court ordered state sponsored divorce, or just a piece of paper.)

I understand that the reasons for the divorce are complicated and left up to ones interruption of the Word for them, but the fact is, right or wrong, correct of incorrect, the Word of God specifically says, to get a divorce all a man has to do is write it on a piece of paper and hand it to the wife.

Then comes the question, does only the man have that right? What if, Exodus 21:10
“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.” is not honored by the husband. What can the wife do about it?

And if she does get a divorce granted, is she forever bound to have to live by the lack the law was established to prevent? But, that's another topic.

Just curious.

So you have another level to dig down into here. The first is to re-examine the passage about not reducing a wife's portion. It doesn't have a broad application to all marriages to begin with.

Look, this is one of the areas that we're always going to get contention on. On one side there's guys like me that take a very hard, rigid line on this stuff and then there are a whole host of positions that take much softer more circumspect approaches.

Frequently the different sides will make each others forehead veins throb. I would say that every word of Scripture is important and if something is important then it's in Scripture. We shouldn't generalize, hypothesize or theorize. We can't add something or fix something we thinks is unfair. It's fair. It flows forth from a just and righteous God.

If your read the Laws on divorce though you'll find they're not that draconian. A woman has no ability to divorce her husband. She can separate and remain single but that's it. Now a woman who is left by her husband has more options. If he divorces her Lawfully then she's free. If he's not a believer and refuses to.live with her in peace then she's free. If he puts her away, without a lawful divorce, then her subsequent remarriage is adultery but it counts again her first husband.

That's pretty much all there is to it if you take it literally. You can complicate it, and someone will, by trying to inject western ideals of chivalry and white knighting in there but that's dangerous ground and I would prefer to conform our culture to scripture than to conform scripture to our culture.

 

[andrew]

Zec, you're mellowing with age....

I have my curiosity piqued, though, by your question, CAP. It is simple and straightforward and quick, however complicated it might be to decide about. Like a bullet in the head: It only takes a second, it's deciding to pull the trigger that's the hard part. (I speak from no personal experience. Just a simile for illustration.)

What interests me about that is that what we have today is a meat grinder of a process that almost always further embitters the parties in a way that is terrible for the children of the union and for the financial health and future of the parties.

Not much time on hand right now, but I'll look forward to coming back to this.

 

[FollowingHim]

It is not at all complicated to create a marriage. We might discuss the details at great length, but there are ultimately only three possibilities: an agreement between the right parties + sex = marriage, or just one of those on its own makes a marriage. Regardless of the precise theological details, once you've done both, all would agree you're married. You could do both in less than half an hour...

Ending a marriage is just as simple - end the agreement and stop having sex. You can also do this in less than half an hour. It parallels it perfectly.

But as Andrew said, it's easy and quick to pull a trigger. The complexity comes beforehand, when deciding whether or not to do it.

Both deeds are simple to do, but neither should be done lightly.

 

[frederick]

Not surprisingly at all but, if we actually hold fast to what God says in His word, there are a lot of issues in life that are far more straight forward than what they have become in the world today. The key is to actually KNOW what God says and then to do that. Nike got it right; Just Do It!

 

[Cap]

Look, this is one of the areas that we're always going to get contention on. On one side there's guys like me that take a very hard, rigid line on this stuff and then there are a whole host of positions that take much softer more circumspect approaches.

No contention here brother, just seeking opinions. However I would ask you were does grace, mercy, or forgiveness fit in your response. Or, is kill them all and let God sort them out the best way to handle it? (You know what I mean. )

So you have another level to dig down into here. The first is to re-examine the passage about not reducing a wife's portion. It doesn't have a broad application to all marriages to begin with.

I understand that this particular passage is in reference to multiple wives and there requirements, however it is a law and the questions is, what retort, if any, does a woman have if this law is not honored. If you steal someones cow there is recourse. Since the Word of God is based on victims rights, what right does a woman (in this case a woman in plural marriage) have.

 

[Cap]

I believe it is complicated to engage in a marriage before God. Is someone who gets drunk and is married in Vegas before a Justice of the Peace truly married in the eyes of God? What about someone who goes to a prostitute? Or these things really just fornication. A larger thought would be in Mark 10:9 "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." , if God joined two people together, could they actually divorce, or separate? By extension, if someone divorces could it be that God did not join them together. Anyway, that's not really the point.

The point is, the creation of marriage in the Word of God is not clearly defined, therefore I call it complicated and it is obvious by the wide range of interpretations and beliefs that its not 'easy'. However, divorce, or the mechanism for divorce is defined and therefore 'easy' because its pretty obvious what is needed. So why is the ending of a marriage, divorce defined but the beginning of a marriage is not?

 

[PeteR]

Let me postulate a few thoughts here... Different things that are related that have been playing in my head...

Man's purpose (among others) is to plant seed.

Woman's purpose (among others) is to be fertile soil.

Torah commands against mixing seed, exactly explaining why a woman can only belong to one man.

If she is soil, he "owns" her and can sell/separate/divorce himself from his 'land' however, his land cannot choose to leave/separate itself/herself from him. (This sounds crass, but exactly parallels the Torah/Biblical principles of farming and agriculture.)

The farmer may own multiple fields, but rightly having dominion/tending requires caring for each according to its particular needs.

There are more related parallels, but the key one for this discussion is that the field can't leave the farmer, but the farmer can sell/leave the field.

Now, for those concerned, I am NOT advocating easy divorce or any divorce for that matter. God HATES divorce... But, I think this parallel helps understand.

 

[FollowingHim]

I still disagree with your fundamental premise that marriage is complex but divorce is simple. The church and secular society certainly complicates marriage, so it is easy to think that marriage is complex - but this is a misunderstanding. It's usually very clear whether someone is married or not.

I believe it is complicated to engage in a marriage before God. Is someone who gets drunk and is married in Vegas before a Justice of the Peace truly married in the eyes of God?

Did they have the authority to make such a decision themselves, make a decision to marry, and consummate it? They're married.

The justice of the peace is irrelevant - no external authority is needed for marriage. The drunkenness is also irrelevant - Jacob married Leah under even more questionable circumstances, he didn't know he was marrying her at all, nevertheless their marriage is never even hinted at as being anything but valid.

What about someone who goes to a prostitute? Or these things really just fornication.

Slight potential for disagreement on the details of this one, but the overall effect is the same. Either:
1) Sex + covenant = marriage. No covenant to be married, in fact the exact opposite, as they had a clear agreement to sleep together for money only. Not married. Or:
2) Sex = marriage. They would be married had she been a virgin - but she wasn't, she's a prostitute. She can be considered married to the man who took her virginity, this is therefore adultery.
Both ways it's fornication, not marriage. The reasoning differs but the effect is the same. So again it's very simple.

The point is, the creation of marriage in the Word of God is not clearly defined, therefore I call it complicated

It is clearly defined:

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Leave parents, physically unite with "his woman" (the word "wife" doesn't exist in Biblical Hebrew), and they're married. To be "his" she must belong to him exclusively.

To put it really simply, once a man shacks up with a woman nobody else has claim to, they're married.
Once he kicks her out of the shack (with written notice), they're divorced. Just as simple.

The complexity is to do with whether they are eligible to marry, how to live while married, whether they are eligible to divorce - and whether it would be wise to do any of this even if permissible for them. Many books have been written on all three subjects, all are complex. But this is supplementary and mainly deals with the complexities introduced by sin, and the confusion introduced by law and tradition. Despite this, the acts of marriage and divorce, in themselves, are both incredibly simple. So simple that they are followed by almost every culture instinctively.

 

[FollowingHim]

@CAP, I should point out that if you do a search on the forum you'll find these issues thrashed out at great length, you may find many of your questions already answered somewhere. We also have some valuable articles under the "Resources" heading on the main website.
Specifically on the topic of "what is marriage", you may find this article helpful.

You are asking excellent questions, please don't think I'm trying to stop your thought process. I've just spent years pondering the same issues at great depth, and ultimately end up coming back to the fact that God loves us enough to make His instructions simple enough for everyone to understand. He doesn't want us to have to all be theologians in order to follow Him. Once we figure out the answers, we'll generally find they are even simpler than we ever imagined possible.

 

[The Revolting Man]

No contention here brother, just seeking opinions. However I would ask you were does grace, mercy, or forgiveness fit in your response. Or, is kill them all and let God sort them out the best way to handle it? (You know what I mean. )



I understand that this particular passage is in reference to multiple wives and there requirements, however it is a law and the questions is, what retort, if any, does a woman have if this law is not honored. If you steal someones cow there is recourse. Since the Word of God is based on victims rights, what right does a woman (in this case a woman in plural marriage) have.

I'm probably not going to be able to give a satisfactory answer to the Law vs. grace question. I can say this, it's rare that we can't satisfy the Law and in this rare cases when we can't it should make us very wary. Grace is given, not claimed. The thing is that a woman's status can be fixed retroactively. You can approach earlier claimants and ask them for a writ.

The verse about not reducing her portion only applies to slave girls who were bought. It's an extra layer of protection for young women who are particularly vulnerable. A regular wife does not have that layer. She is fully submitted to her husband as the church is to Christ. He can do whatever he wants with her portion.

 

[cnystrom]

I am thinking that if there was no law or teaching on this then it would be simple. People would just go their own way. However, since adultery was a stoning offence, it seems to me that the paper would become a very valuable document to ascertain whether you are with a married woman or not.

Secondly, I think easy does not make it right. For example, just because a women who has left her husband and has instructions to not to get married if she does leave her husband, it does not invalidate the first teaching that she is not to leave her husband. It is still wrong for her to do so.

So the idea that if you divorce a woman you are required to give her written documentation, I do not believe it follows then that it is ok to divorce a women if you feel like it as long as you give her written documentation. It is still wrong.

And then of course you still have Jesus' teaching in Matt 5:32 that "anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." so it looks to me that divorce documentation is not equivalent to a marriage license.

Anyway it looks like a lot of bad things down the divorce rabbit hole. God hates it. Better to stay together.

 

[Cap]

I'm probably not going to be able to give a satisfactory answer to the Law vs. grace question.

My view is that without a good understanding of Grace one can't really understand the Law. The First Covenant was given to prove that man can not follow the Law, and the the Second Covenant was give to show God's Grace because he can't.

Grace is given, not claimed.

Exactly, and we are called to follow our Savior and offer grace through love because we are all sinners and have failed, at least at one of the Laws. I am sure you know that you have not fully honored all the Laws in the First Covenant, Correct? And you depend on Grace and Mercy. So do I.

And so did the the woman caught in adultery. In her case, first the Law was not honored by the men who accused her, and they offered grace, then the Ultimate Law Giver did not follow His own Law and gave her Grace as well.

Grace trumps Law. We are expected to understand the Law and that it has not been done away with, but it is necessary to understand the Law fully so that we can truly understand the Grace given to us, and what we should try to extend to others.

But this is not at all what I am trying glean from this thread. I am interested in the topic of divorce.

 

[Cap]

I am aware of the discussion about marriage on this forum, I am also aware of the initiator of that discussion. My question, and hopeful discussion here is about divorce. There is a lot of discussion everywhere about the idea of biblical marriage. What I am trying to do is get more information in regards to biblical divorce. Granted, God hates divorce, but God also hates sin, but He created it. And we spend a great deal of time talking about sin and marriage and other things God created but we don't talk about divorce which God created too, or at least allowed if you can't accept created.

Samuel, I am aware that you are a wannabe polygamist like most of us here, but have you ever been divorced?

 

[Cap]

I still disagree with your fundamental premise that marriage is complex but divorce is simple. The church and secular society certainly complicates marriage, so it is easy to think that marriage is complex - but this is a misunderstanding. It's usually very clear whether someone is married or not.

Did they have the authority to make such a decision themselves, make a decision to marry, and consummate it? They're married.

The justice of the peace is irrelevant - no external authority is needed for marriage. The drunkenness is also irrelevant - Jacob married Leah under even more questionable circumstances, he didn't know he was marrying her at all, nevertheless their marriage is never even hinted at as being anything but valid.

Slight potential for disagreement on the details of this one, but the overall effect is the same. Either:
1) Sex + covenant = marriage. No covenant to be married, in fact the exact opposite, as they had a clear agreement to sleep together for money only. Not married. Or:
2) Sex = marriage. They would be married had she been a virgin - but she wasn't, she's a prostitute. She can be considered married to the man who took her virginity, this is therefore adultery.
Both ways it's fornication, not marriage. The reasoning differs but the effect is the same. So again it's very simple.

It is clearly defined:

Leave parents, physically unite with "his woman" (the word "wife" doesn't exist in Biblical Hebrew), and they're married. To be "his" she must belong to him exclusively.

To put it really simply, once a man shacks up with a woman nobody else has claim to, they're married.
Once he kicks her out of the shack (with written notice), they're divorced. Just as simple.

The complexity is to do with whether they are eligible to marry, how to live while married, whether they are eligible to divorce - and whether it would be wise to do any of this even if permissible for them. Many books have been written on all three subjects, all are complex. But this is supplementary and mainly deals with the complexities introduced by sin, and the confusion introduced by law and tradition. Despite this, the acts of marriage and divorce, in themselves, are both incredibly simple. So simple that they are followed by almost every culture instinctively.

Please explain, based on your formula, the marriage of God to Mary and the possibility of Joseph as an adulterer, if it is so simple.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I believe it is complicated to engage in a marriage before God. Is someone who gets drunk and is married in Vegas before a Justice of the Peace truly married in the eyes of God? What about someone who goes to a prostitute? Or these things really just fornication. A larger thought would be in Mark 10:9 "Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." , if God joined two people together, could they actually divorce, or separate? By extension, if someone divorces could it be that God did not join them together. Anyway, that's not really the point.

The point is, the creation of marriage in the Word of God is not clearly defined, therefore I call it complicated and it is obvious by the wide range of interpretations and beliefs that its not 'easy'. However, divorce, or the mechanism for divorce is defined and therefore 'easy' because its pretty obvious what is needed. So why is the ending of a marriage, divorce defined but the beginning of a marriage is not?

So Andrew accused me of mellowing and this happened. If I were Andrew I'd think there was a conspiracy to undermine my credibility.

Did you not read Samuel's post? Creating a marriage is very easily defined. Paul says if you lay with a prostitute you are creating one flesh. This is one of the simplest issues in scripture and divorce isn't any harder.

All of the rules concerning forming and breaking a marriage have been listed in this thread already. If you have a situation that isn't covered there then you're not talking about biblical marriage.

The Las Vegas marriage is a smoke screen, as is any outside involvement. There is no role for any authority other than the bride's father in biblical marriage. The justice of the peace has no more relevance to the issue than a preacher or a probate judge. You aren't stripping out your biases. You're trying to make scripture fit your preconceptions.

Did you have sex with her? You either married her or committed adultery. Did you give her a writ of divorce? If yes she's divorced and free. If not, someone is committing adultery.

 

[Cap]

So Andrew accused me of mellowing and this happened. If I were Andrew I'd think there was a conspiracy to undermine my credibility.

Did you not read Samuel's pos? Creating a marriage is very easily defined. Paul says if you lay with a prostitute you are creating one flesh. This is one of the simplest issues in scripture and divorce isn't any harder.

All of the rules concerning forming and breaking a marriage have been listed in this thread already. If you have a situation that isn't covered there then you're not talking about biblical marriage.

The Las Vegas marriage is a smoke screen, as is any outside involvement. There is no role for any authority other than the bride's father in biblical marriage. The justice of the peace has no more relevance to the issue than a preacher or a probate judge. You aren't stripping out your biases. You're trying to make scripture fit your preconceptions.

Did you have sex with her? You either married her or committed adultery. Did you give her a writ of divorce? If yes she's divorced and free. If not, someone is committing adultery.

Sorry to offend you, no conspiracy against you. I don't even know you. Just looking for discussion. And I don't think Samuel has all the answers.

At this point I withdraw my question.

 

[FollowingHim]

Please explain, based on your formula, the marriage of God to Mary and the possibility of Joseph as an adulterer, if it is so simple.

God never had sex with Mary - she gave birth as a virgin, which is the whole point. So no marriage. Joseph married her legitimately.

 

[FollowingHim]

@CAP, I think you're missing this point I'm trying to be clear on, but maybe cnystrom is clearer:

Secondly, I think easy does not make it right.

I am not arguing divorce is right for anyone, nor that it can be done flippantly with few consequences. It is a very serious matter that God hates, and is only allowed in particular circumstances.

But it is very simple to do.

Marriage is equally simple to do - but woe to the couple who do it when they shouldn't...

I am aware of the discussion about marriage on this forum, I am also aware of the initiator of that discussion.

I have no idea what you're talking about. This forum contains many years of discussions on marriage, including many on divorce, initiated by many people. I suggest searching the archives as part of your research because it's often a faster way to get insight into an issue than waiting for people to respond to a new discussion, and it allows you to glean wisdom from different people to those currently active also. It also lets you get around tge fact that we've wandered from your original question a bit, regarding woman-initiated divorce, I haven't even attempted to answer it but have been instead clarifying a root premise first.

If you withdraw the question I won't take the time to address it, I am not interested in discussing something for the sake of having a discussion - but if you're still trying to figure out something just say so and I'll try to help as I can. I disagree with Zec that the verse has only narrow application, I personally believe it outlines a more general principle - but there's no point elaborating if you're not interested.

Also check out the book "Divorce and marriage: Recovering the biblical view" by Luck, see the "books" section of the main website for more info. His position differs somewhat from some of the points made here, but is deeply researched and informative to consider when working thus out for yourself.

 

[Cap]

God never had sex with Mary - she gave birth as a virgin, which is the whole point. So no marriage. Joseph married her legitimately.

The relationship between Mary and God was not a simply matter to Joseph, now was it?

That's my point. But if things are simple in the bible to you, you are better man than me. I actually think things in the bible are complicated and we need God's Spirit to help us understand. And just because you say so and have your formulas doesn't mean I accept it.

At this point no one has understood what I was trying to bring up, and the reasons I did, and you clarifying 'your' root premise is not really beneficial to the question. And just so you know I did do a search on "divorce"and it did not bring up what I was after. There is not point in continuing so don't waste you time. Actually, the information referencing the the book NOT represented in my original search on the forum is what I need and I require no further discussion.