Does God Hate Divorce?
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
On July 29th, I received an e-mail from a woman who had read material on our website concerning marriage and divorce. She wanted to know if she could ask a question on this subject, and the next day I wrote back that she could. We had several exchanges that day, and she sent additional information relating to her personal situation. No names or details of this marital plight shall be presented here—only the rationale of her husband and a person that he cited will be examined.
The husband clearly wanted out of the marriage; he searched the Internet to find a way to accomplish that goal. He claims to be a Christian, however; so he wanted some sort of Biblical rationale (to salve his conscience, no doubt). One site that he came across was called "Divorce Hope," and it led him to a book titled Divorce: God's Will? by Stephen Gola. He told his wife that he now believed that if a "marriage is causing you to 'move away' from God then you need to sacrifice that marriage for God." Really? And what Scripture teaches that doctrine? Anyone could make this subjective claim whether or not it was true. If a person only perceived that it was the case, he would have grounds for divorce. Such a principle is not found anywhere in the Scriptures.
The husband, in this instance, constantly wrote e-mails in a belittling tone to his wife, telling her that she "despised the Word of God" and only used it when it was to her own advantage—something that does not appear to be the case. In fact, he seems to be accusing his wife of what he is actually guilty of. Amazingly, he takes it upon himself to educate her in the Scriptures. After stating, "Here is a primer" (another condescending remark), he makes the outrageous claim:
"God does not hate divorce he invented it, see Ezra and Nehamiah [sic] last chapters—there are over a hundred examples."
The reader does not know if he made a typo on Nehemiah's name or is just ignorant. Either is possible. Anyone who knows the Bible is undoubtedly shocked to read such a sentence—especially when Malachi 2:16 describes God's sentiments toward divorce in plain, simple language: "For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce…." Does anyone see any ambiguity in this declaration? But just as Satan put a not in God's Word to Adam and Eve that they would surely die if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (saying they would not surely die—Genesis 3:4), so the husband added a not to the Scriptures, saying that God does not hate divorce.
Did God invent divorce—or did man? We see no provision made for terminating a marriage in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:18-25). Nothing is mentioned of it until man had begun to practice it; then God regulated what could and could not be done—and why. Jesus provides only one reason for divorce—fornication (Matt. 19:9). God was not thinking of escape clauses when He instituted marriage for a man and a woman. But human beings with free will can choose to violate their vows to one another, and the one who had remained faithful to the marriage may, with God's permission, seek a divorce. Neither the husband nor the wife, in this instance, was guilty of fornication.
The claim about Ezra and Nehemiah is thoroughly misrepresented. The husband has not bothered to read either text in its context; he is using it as a pretext to exit from his own marriage. What happened in Ezra 10 is the result of what occurred in Ezra 9. God had forbidden marriage with various peoples of the land of Canaan (Deut. 7:1-5). After the captivity, many of the Israelites "married" these women, which violated God's law (Ezra 9:1-2). Ezra, when he heard this news, tore his garment and his robe, plucked out some of his hair, and sat down astonished (9:3). The leaders of Israel had violated God's commandment.
As Ezra prayed, he began by saying:
O my God: I am too ashamed and humiliated to lift up my face to You, my God; for our iniquities have risen higher than our heads, and our guilt has grown up to the heavens (9:6).
The only solution to these unauthorized marriages was to put away the wives and children, which is what was eventually done (10:10-12, 44). Nehemiah encountered a similar problem and contended with those who practiced such a thing (Neh. 13:23-27). God does not approve of divorce—unless the marriage was never authorized in the first place, in which case the separation is not actually a divorce. If the husband and wife in the situation were both eligible to be married, and if there has been no fornication committed, then what occurred in Ezra and Nehemiah can have no application whatsoever. Furthermore, no one today is under the law of Deuteronomy 7:1-5, which was nailed to the cross with the rest of the old covenant (Col. 2:14).
The "God is the Same" Fallacy
The next statement of the husband's "primer" is:
God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow—expect for wrongheaded biblicalluy [sic] illierates [sic] who take on face value what they think they heard someone else say one time.
Once again his comments are as demeaning and insulting as they are erroneous. Hebrews 13:8 refers to the character of God—not His covenants. As mentioned earlier, the Law was nailed to the cross; we are not obligated to obey the covenant that God gave to Israel through Moses; we have a better one (Heb. 8:6-7). If the husband thinks that Hebrews 13:8 means that we are bound by the Law of Moses, then he should be asked if he keeps the Sabbath Day (Saturday), observes the dietary laws of the Israelites, and participates in the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). "Oh, but God hasn't changed," we can assure him—and then see if he is willing to change his awkward theology. He cannot use Ezra and Nehemiah to get out of a marriage he does not want to be in.
The husband continues: "By the way Ezra is the same word as wife—a wife it to help build the holy temple" [sic]. What?? The word for wife [Strong's 802] does not have any known connection to the name of Ezra [5830]. Talk about hearing someone say something and passing it on! He obviously did not check out the claim he made here. And what does a wife have to do with building a holy temple? One wonders if the husband has been taking some kind of drug.
The next point in the "primer" was: "Solomon was lead [sic] away by women—it would have been better for him to put them away." No, it would have been better for him not to have married them in the first place. Deuteronomy 17:17 forbade the multiplying of wives; Solomon violated this precept.
"God is a divorce [sic] he divorced Israel." Probably the husband means: "God is a divorcee." God's people were unfaithful to him. He has the same right to put away an unfaithful spouse that He gave the rest of us.
"Abraham was commanded to divorce Hagar—the word says they were married in case you didn't know that." Once again, the husband is abusive and insulting in his approach to the wife. Were Abraham and Hagar married? Yes. Sarah "gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife…" (Gen. 16:3). But where was Abraham commanded to divorce her? The husband makes several assumptions but does not offer Scriptures to substantiate his assertions. All that we have is recorded in Genesis 21. Sarah told Abraham, after seeing Hagar's son scoffing at Isaac: "Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, namely with Isaac" (21:9-10). God did not command Abraham to divorce Hagar; instead He said to do what Sarah had said to him (v. 12). When God assured Abraham that Ishmael would also be a great nation, he sent Hagar and her son away (v. 14).
The word divorce is not found in Genesis 21, nor the phraseology of putting away. God's only command was to listen to Sarah who wanted Hagar sent away. Now someone might make the argument that, in effect, this action was equivalent to a divorce, and in certain respects it certainly seems so, but in other ways it is not. First of all, the marriage was arranged mainly for the purpose of conceiving a legitimate child. After the child was conceived, nothing is said of a continuing relationship between Abraham and Hagar. In fact, considering Sarah's attitude, it seems rather unlikely. Abraham provided for Hagar and Ishmael, but that came to an end. Abraham did not want this separation, but it was in the best interest for his family that it occur. Abraham knew that God would take care of and provide for Hagar. To attempt to use this situation as authorization for divorce is to overlook all the aspects of the situation and is an act of desperation.
God does not hate divorce like you might think? In fact in the Hebrew it says He hates putting away wo/ certificate of divorce. In such a case she could not marry and be provided for in those days. So for instance she would marry another and be considered adulterous [sic]. It was a real problem. No! Divorce was for her benefit - unending separation [sic] wo/ certificate God says he hates because it hurt the woman.
Do these words make sense to anyone? No passage says divorce is acceptable so long as a certificate is given. Such is a distortion of Deuteronomy 24:1-4; the above rationale is not even hinted at. Nor was it in Jeremiah 3:8 when God gave Israel a certificate of divorce because of her adultery. God does hate divorce or putting away whether or not there is a certificate. But citing Deuteronomy 24 still refers to a practice under the Law of Moses. We are under the New Testament of Jesus, and Matthew 19:9 applies to us.
A Covenantal Model
It is unclear whether the husband is quoting material taught by Stephen Gola or someone else. He does not himself cite any sources, although quotes are contained in his e-mails from some other source. Following is a synopsis which would allow a husband and wife to divorce in almost any set of circumstances.
The writer points out that marriage is a covenant between two individuals, which is true. Without that commitment, two people are not married. However, the writer's first departure from the Scriptures comes when he considers reasons for breaking a covenant. After pointing out correctly that a marriage covenant is dissolved by death, he then enters into Fantasyland:
In the Old Testament, "divorce" was carried out by a literal physical execution of the guilty party for capital offenses, which were the same as what most people would consider divorceable offenses today, such as adultery, rape, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, murder, child-sacrifice, witchcraft, and blasphemy. "Divorce by death made remarriage possible, and freed the innocent partner from bondage to a guilty and unclean person," writes Rousas John Rushdoony in The Institutes of Biblical Law.
Hold on, there. Although murder, child-sacrifice, witchcraft, and blasphemy were worthy of capital punishment, it should be made clear that they were not causes of divorce. The writer indicates, however that they are when he adds: "Today, people are not executed for the above practices, but such behaviors kill the marriage covenant, causing covenantal death." No, blasphemy (although wrong) is not a cause of divorce today.
The writer cites many Biblical principles accurately but then resorts to a man who wrote a book—Second Chance—Biblical Principles of Divorce and Remarriage by Ray R. Sutton. Obviously, he did not write one of the books in either the Old or the New Testaments; the reader is left to wonder why he is cited at all. Only Scriptures can define sin. Apparently, Sutton wrote these words:
In the early centuries of the church, divorce was granted for such crimes as adultery, witchcraft, and wife-beating. Remarriage often followed. During the Reformation as well, Martin Bucer among other influential teachers saw marriage and divorce based on the covenantal model and determined that divorce was permissible for any type of fornication, witchcraft, insanity, and contagious incurable disease, like leprosy.
Except for the historical significance church history might have, what happened in the 2nd century does not constitute authority for the Christian. The Scriptures do not teach that witchcraft, wife-beating, insanity, and incurable diseases are grounds for divorce.
Martin Bucer was an uninspired man; Christians do not abide by his opinions. As for divorcing for insanity, Jane Eyre certainly knew nothing about such an idea, and that piece of fiction is just as authoritative as Bucer—neither one is inspired of God. The writer continues with more irrelevancies from Sutton, who claims that "fornication includes not only all manner of sexual sins but also all the capital offenses of the Bible." Sutton offers no proof for this assertion.
In answering, "What are the divorceable offenses?' the writer does not examine Matthew 19:9. He once again goes to Sutton, who "lists two broad categories":
sins against God including idolatry, blasphemy, witchcraft, divination, and spiritism.
The second group consists of sins against the spouse. This group is then divided into two subgroups: the first subgroup includes all sexual sins, and second is a subgroup he calls "murder." Murder includes physical abuse and desertion (physical and sexual), infant sacrifice, and failure to provide economically. As you can see, the list of divorceable offenses includes far more than adultery.
What we see is that Sutton's list is much broader than fornication. What no one sees is that his lists come from the Bible; they do not. The next tactic is to demonize all who disagree with Mr. Sutton as lacking compassion and being hard-hearted. These attacks against those who abide by what the Scriptures teach (instead of Mr. Sutton) do not change what Jesus taught.
I Am Dissolved
The husband abiding by Sutton e-mailed his wife thus: "I DISANNUL ANY COVENANT WE HAVE MADE NOW, THE SPIRIT OF GOD AND THE FATHER BEING MY WITNESS." God never gave him such authority, but it is obvious that he does not care what God thinks. He wants a divorce (and possibly to marry again)—and does not care what God says on the matter. He further implied that any attempt to change his mind or will would constitute the practice of witchcraft! Imagine that! Going to the Word of God to show someone the truth is now defined as witchcraft! What's next?
Ironically, the husband accuses the poor wife of being "out of touch with the voice of God" (which he presumably hears—especially when it tells him what he already desires to do). The voice the husband is listening to is one of his own imagination (perhaps due to a failure to take appropriate medications). He cannot intelligently discuss the Scriptures. He searched for material on the Internet that validated his position, and he found it. Unfortunately, many others are doing so as well. All of these efforts are designed to sidestep, invalidate, and contradict what Jesus taught about the permanence of marriage (Matthew 19:9) in a vain effort to allow a person to divorce and remarry without feeling guilty. In this instance, however, for him to win is to lose.