God hates divorce. Why not War?

[thessalonian]

On my way to work this morning I thought of an interesting question.. The scripture tells us:


Mal 2
16: "For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless."

The peaceniks of the world would have you think that he forgot to say that he hates war. Funny thing is there is a time for it.


Ecc 3
8: a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.


So why does God hate divorce but does not explictly say he hates war? (I think he definitely hates some wars that are not timely). I have my opinions that interrelate the two but I would like to see some discussion rather than debate and so will not yet post them.

 

[Drew]

It is my understanding that the more correct reading of the Malachi 2 text is that God hates "putting away" which is not the same thing as divorce. Putting a woman away meant sending her out of your home without a "certificate of divorce". I am inclined to believe that "putting away" is what God really hates.

In any event, I guess that my thoughts are that the world is so complex that it does not allow even God to specify hard and fast "rules", such as "don't divorce" or "don't engage in war". I think this principle is taught to us in Matthew 12. The overarching principle is love. If divorce is truly the most loving course in a particular situation, so be it (sadly). If war is truly the most loving act in another situation, so be it (again, sadly).

 

[thessalonian]

So all the bible scholars who have done the translating got it wrong and you have given it almost the opposite meaning? How interesting. Sorry, I don't accept your obvuscation.

Continue the discussion folks.

 

[lovely]

Marriage

The first thing that comes to my mind is that the union of a marriage is brought together by an oath before God, and for the purpose of two becoming One. Obviously Christ, and the church is the picture that comes to mind here, a covenant. This covenant is broken when one of the two rips at the fabric of the covenant in an act of unfaithfulness...which starts in the heart. God compare this in Malachi to the blood spatter on murder's clothing. It kills something that is flesh, in that sense, one flesh. You can not rip it apart without killing it, and it carries with it intent, as a murder does.

God also warns us to not be unequally yoked, because the union will never be a true sense of two promised together for a united purpose before God. It can't be done, when each serve a different master spiritually. I think in cases of one already being married, and then becoming a believer, God has given them an out if their unbelieving spouse chooses to leave. This is for their spiritual benefit, and because the unbelieving spouse is not concerned with God's law, or a covenant before God. However, if their unbelieving spouse stays, and the believer is faithful, God's blessing is on the family, and the unbelieving spouse could even be brought to faith.

War...

We know that God used war, and still does, to achieve His purpose. Israel was commanded to go to war, taught how to war, disciplined by war in judgement, built up with war, and the enemy was scattered, and defeated, by war.

We war to keep the peace we have in an effort to protect our own nation, aid those who can not defend themselves, and to help nations we have aligned ourselves with. We are ruled by a government that doesn't seek God in these matters, but God has put them in place. He accomplishes His will through such things. I am not sure that all wars fall into the category of my three reasons...certainly there are various political agendas, and financial agendas, that I could never fully understand in the struggle for power by corrupted leaders. I do not think the soldiers do it for those reasons, however. War can be a means to battle injustice, and protect, when not abused to accomplish evil. Even police forces do battle daily in order to keep peace, and protect. Again, this can be used in a corruptive way as well, that does not reflect on every officer, or to the overall purpose behind the need.

War is a picture of a spiritual battle that rages, and the rebellion is one of evil, satanic, forces. God tells us this battle is not of the flesh. This is carried on under the Lord's banner, and with Christ as our leader. We are to pray, watch, endure, deny ourselves entaglements with the enemy, and stand firm. God helps us, protects us, gives us strength. He has provided us with armor, and has already given us victory.

I am looking forward to the answers of other, and yours Thess. The Lord bless you.

 

[Drew]

So all the bible scholars who have done the translating got it wrong and you have given it almost the opposite meaning? How interesting. Sorry, I don't accept your obvuscation.

Continue the discussion folks.

Here is a quote from Dallas Willard on the topic of divorce:

Neither Jesus nor Paul ever discussed what we today call divorce. Jesus taught that men should not put away women. Neither He nor Paul dealt with divorce or separation by mutual consent or in cases where provision is made by a division of property or alimony or otherwise. He did not deal with this because it did not exist. Now this is not a theory or interpretation but a fact about his teaching on man/woman relationships. In I Cor. 7 Paul also deals only with one person putting away or leaving another, where one mate is a disciple and the other is not. To repeat, there is no prohibition of divorce as we now know it, except insofar as a divorce still turns outâ€â€as it often doesâ€â€to be the cruel "putting away" which Jesus condemned. Jesus did not deal with this for the simple reason that in his day there was no such thing as our divorce procedures allowing a bad situation to be improved by the dissolution of a family unit.

Now I understand Dallas Willard to be a respected Christian writer. So maybe things are not as clear as you think they are.....

 

[thessalonian]

Well then I guess I am sorry. You have proven your point with the words of Dallas Williard. Clearly he is te infallible authority and the rest of Christinity is wrong about divorce. Sarcasm out. I could care less about Dallas Willard.

Carry on folks.

 

[Drew]

Well then I guess I am sorry. You have proven your point with the words of Dallas Williard. Clearly he is te infallible authority and the rest of Christinity is wrong about divorce. Sarcasm out. I could care less about Dallas Willard.

Carry on folks.

Do you mods all take the same "I will try to win my point by character assassination" school. What a dreadful witness to the faith this forum has become.

 

[thessalonian]

Whose character have I assasinated? Apparently you are offended by my not agreeing with you about your obvuscations on divorce. You can take Dallas Willard's word for it if you like. He is not the point of the discussion and I don't want to derail the thread by going off on a tangent about whether the divorce we have today is what God hates. I believe it is but that is not the discussion. Perhaps later in the thread I will take your bait. Not now.

By the way I was not posting as a moderator and so such commentary by you is rather innappropriate in my view. If you want to vent moderator criticism please do it in PM in the future.

 

[destiny]

It is my understanding that the more correct reading of the Malachi 2 text is that God hates "putting away" which is not the same thing as divorce. Putting a woman away meant sending her out of your home without a "certificate of divorce". I am inclined to believe that "putting away" is what God really hates.

In any event, I guess that my thoughts are that the world is so complex that it does not allow even God to specify hard and fast "rules", such as "don't divorce" or "don't engage in war". I think this principle is taught to us in Matthew 12. The overarching principle is love. If divorce is truly the most loving course in a particular situation, so be it (sadly). If war is truly the most loving act in another situation, so be it (again, sadly).

'Sadly' as some situations in reality are, I see your point Drew. Although it would certainly depend completely on the circumstances as to whether either of these would be justifiable or not.

 

[Dakota]

Most of our past, including in the bible, is about war and bloodshed. It is just to fight for what is right.

 

[WMD]

This thread is a little confusing.... Let me see if I can follow....


First Thessalonian posted an observation about God hating divorce, but not war....

Second Drew posted his opinion about his interpretation of the passages quoted by Thessalonian, and then stated what he thinks about the passages......

am I right so far?......

Third Thessalonian slammed Drew and his opinions by saying

So all the bible scholars who have done the translating got it wrong and you have given it almost the opposite meaning? How interesting. Sorry, I don't accept your obvuscation.
Continue the discussion folks.

The last remark "continue the discussion folks" was a nice sarcastic touch....


Fourth Drew did not get defensive and start calling names or throwing insults... which so often happens on internet message boards, but he quoted a christian scholar who wrote about the topic and show the sources that helped influence his interpretation of the passage....

I am still on the right track I think......

Fifth Thessalonian replies with a very nice sarcastic message.

Well then I guess I am sorry. You have proven your point with the words of Dallas Williard. Clearly he is te infallible authority and the rest of Christinity is wrong about divorce. Sarcasm out. I could care less about Dallas Willard.

Carry on folks.

again the "carry on folks"...nice touch.

I think I follow.... but what I dont understand is why Thess is acting the way he is? The Bible is open to interpretation.. no matter how you read it or what version you read, you have to read and sometimes go back to the original texts to understand what things meant at the time they were written.

So Drew is having a mature discussion even quoting people he has read and Thess is getting all cranky because he doesnt agree... do you have something against Drew?

As said before.... you are not being a very good witness.

 

[thessalonian]

WMD,

Perhaps you could quit with character assisinations. :-D I am hardly cranky. I simply don't want to derail the thread from the intent. Since I created it I know what that intent is. Drew's post is out of scope. If he want to discuss that aspect he can start his own thread and you can go over and join him.

God bless

 

[Drew]

Drew's post is out of scope.

I do not see that this is so. Consider the original question:

So why does God hate divorce but does not explictly say he hates war

If it is debatable that the Malachi teaching about divorce is really a teaching about "putting away", then the presumption behind the question is in doubt. That seems like fair ball to me. There is a fundamental conceptual distinction between divorce and "putting away" and perhaps this distinction is indeed relevant when the two are contrasted with the issue of war.

 

[Vic C.]

If it is debatable that the Malachi teaching about divorce is really a teaching about "putting away", then the presumption behind the question is in doubt. That seems like fair ball to me. There is a fundamental conceptual distinction between divorce and "putting away" and perhaps this distinction is indeed relevant when the two are contrasted with the issue of war.

Drew, maybe you could explain to us in your own words (or verses) what the term "put away" means in a historical, Hebrew way. Keep in mind the words from the sourcse you quoted:

Jesus taught that men should not put away women.

Sounds a lot like:

Mal 2:16 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.

Looks like Jesus and The Almighty have the same thing in mind. Form a contextual point of view, it isn't debatable at all.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Let me clarify divorce and war scripturally.

Divorce is not permitted. Period. It's amazing how most Christians will rationalize it because they like to have some lass on the side.

Secondly, war is permissible if God says there's Canaanites in the land. That's how He judges them.

 

[Drew]

Divorce is not permitted. Period.

You need to defend this claim.

 

[thessalonian]

Drew,

I am sorry if I have offended you in not giving your view that divorce is okay if a bill is given any quarter. But it becomes and absurdity when looking at the whole passage of Matt 19:

Matt 19
[3] And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?"
[4] He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, [5] and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife ,and the two shall become one flesh'?

Now man and woman were made for eachother at the time of creation. Adam says "this one at last is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone" and they were to be united. This unity in them was in the image and likeness of the trinity which is the eternal union of the Godhead. A union which will never be broken for all eternity. This is the "in the beginning" that Jesus spoke of. Sin of course entered the world and this unity was compromised. Man dominates women and women look to men to fullfill them in a disordered way. Sin entered. Now Jesus came with the grace to restore this one flesh union to the image and likeness of God. To join men and women together as one flesh once again by grace. By grace marriages can succeed. By sin they fail. And so this idea you have about Jesus telling them that divorce is okay if their is a bill of sale is absurd because it is contrary to the very way that God intends for man and woman to be.

[6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

Once again if you are saying that God says that divorce is fine with a bill of divorce, then why is Jesus saying this. You need to put the passage in context.

[7] They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
[8] He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Once again from the beginning is clearly referring to the time of Adam and Eve in the garden before sin entered the world.

[9] And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."

You would obvuscate in "without a bill of divorce". I don't see it in the passage. Sorry.

[10] The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry."
[11] But he said to them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.
[12] For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

Some are given the grace to be celibate for their lives because marriage is difficult. It forces the severed union of man and woman to live together so that God can repair the union by his grace. This statement only makes sense in the context of the indissolubility of marriage.


[13] Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people;
[14] but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."
[15] And he laid his hands on them and went away.

I put this in because every time that divorce is mentioned in the Bible children are spoken of as well. The destruction of the one flesh union by man damages the souls of children and that is why God hates divorce. The children of divorce become a curse for the following generation who has to deal with their disordered lives caused by the breakup of the family. I think this is the key reason why we are now seeing an increase in wars in the world. But ware is neccessary to protect our families and our religous freedoms.

Now, that is really all I have to say about divorce. I am not going to turn this thread in to the same debate that has been on dozens of message boards all over the net about whether divorce is right or not. Answer the question given and start your own thread on the merrits of divorce. If you beliefs don't match the question go elsewhere and don't clutter my thread.
I am not saying this in moderator capacity. I will let you know when I am. I am simply saying it in a rather direct manner so that you get the point. Thank you.


Blessings

 

[Drew]

Drew, maybe you could explain to us in your own words (or verses) what the term "put away" means in a historical, Hebrew way. Keep in mind the words from the sourcse you quoted:

I do not really have the time to dig up some of the stuff that I have read. However, the gist of it is that the Scriptures draw a distinction between divorce (where a separation was recognized legally) and "putting a woman away" which meant she was not legally recognized as being divorced and therefore was not a candidate for remarriage. Women who were "put away" were in dire financial straits since a man was needed in order to generate income. Such women often resorted to prostitution. It has been argued that Jesus and other Scripture writers were really dealing with putting away and not divorce (which appears to have been legal in OT times).

I realize I am not answering your question fully, but, as you should probably know, I choose my words with great care. I never claimed that the interpretation I have presented is correct or that I adhere to it.

In point of fact, I think that Jesus' teaching in Matthew 12 renders the whole debate somewhat academic. Jesus says (I added the bold):

He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated breadâ€â€which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here.If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

My take on this is that Jesus freely admits that all laws, even ones that come from God, have exceptions. This material from Matt 12, combined with the "great commandment" (Matt 24?) teach us that love, and not a prescriptive moral code, is the highest consideration in all matters. That is why I believe that Jesus would not hold a heart surgeon to break God's law about working on the Sabbath if he/she performed emergency surgery on the Sabbath (if that were possible in those times).

I believe that most Christians will argue that Jesus is saying that it is man's laws that are being broken, not God's. I do not think this is true and will defend this point if necessary.

So in respect to divorce, I think that Jesus teaches a general principle (in his Matthew 19 teaching for example), but agree that there are not cases when divorce is a loving act for all concerned.

 

[Drew]

Having answered Vic's question, I will leave this thread. I do not agree that the issue I have raised is irrelevant since it calls into question the very validity of the OP question. However, I think I have made my point and wil let you all discuss whatever you want to discuss.

I think that the Matthew 12 teaching combined with the "great commandment" shows Jesus believes love pre-dominates over all prescriptive moral codes.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Divorce is not permitted. Period.

You need to defend this claim.

I'm saying that anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.