God hates divorce

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anonymous (not verified)
God hates divorce

It seems obvious in scripture that God hates divorce. Divorce in our world (polygamy) as being any complete separation of wife from husband. One of the things God has laid on my heart is to realize that taking additional wives falls under the same rules and expectations as a first marriage. It would be all to easy to "divorce" a second "wife" since there are little if any legal implications to do so. However, in God's eyes a second, marriage is formed with covenant and sexual relations to a second woman. Once that happens, it is a marriage for life. He does not look any kinder on divorce of a second wife than one from a first. Something to contemplate... The message to me is... This is not something to "try" or "test" to see if it works out. Marriage whether first, second, third, etc is a lifelong covenant before God, and God hates divorce.

DaveandBrenda (not verified)
Our witness


How sad would it be for those who have revealed and walked in the truth of plural marriage, to then use it as a vehicle for serial divorce, leaving behind a train of broken women and families.

With a higher opportunity comes a greater responsibility.

Modern marriage


Our modern marriage system seems to be just what you described .... only monogamous.

Serial divorces, serial marriages, just one at a time tho. With a more than 50% divorce rate in monogamous marriages it is hard to see much more than broken men, women, children, pets,.. families ripped apart.

But hey, plural marriage is bad right? (she says dripping with sarcasm)

re Gods Hate


I've never exactly understood those that can conceive of a God which feels 'hate'.

I perceive that is one of the major missions of Christ. ... to let people know that the age of the barbarian was over....

yet they killed him for trying to teach that principle.....

The Jews loved the angry God and his endless lists of laws that required blood sacrifices, barbaric punishments, and the taking of an eye for an eye...the Jews couldn't tolerate peace...so they killed their saviour.

and still today...people prefer the idea of an angry, hateful, jealous, emotionally unstable God.

go figure. Irrational is as irrational does.

DaveandBrenda (not verified)
God's character


I'm sorry... This is titled "christian polygamy" forum. Perhaps I am mistaken on content definition?

First... Jesus leadership failed? We should not use Jesus as our example? Now god himself is emotionally unstable? The age of old testament is barbaric because of God character? And even the bold statement "Jesus was killed?"

Such accusations seems... Borderline blasphemous to a Christian.

These statements... Do not bring peace. I do not see reason to debate such outlandish claims.



Many families I know have no state married "legal" wife. In a couple of families I have seen there is a state married wife, and in one family, they themselves put emphasis on that. I find that odd, myself. Each family has to do things their own way, but a piece of paper in no way makes a marriage. Covenants between a man and wife, before God do. Not that I ever wish to speak for God but I don't find in the scriptures where the Roman state piece of paper equals a marriage. I have also chatted with a lot of "first" wives who don't want to hear that and would NEVER give up that piece of paper. Good plural marriage candidate?

Torahkeeper's picture
God hates divorce?


This is not scriptural.  God doesn't "hate" divorce.  It never says that in the text.  The bible translators got it wrong, and now many many people have an un-Godly view of divorce.  Deuteronomy 24 gives us instructions for divorce.  So if God "hates" it so much, why would He allow it and tell us how to do it properly?  Afterall, He calls eating swine's flesh an ABOMINATION, and he calls homosexuality an ABOMINATION.  Did He forget to add those words to His Instructions/Laws?  Hardly, but what people need to realize is what God actually HATES - "putting away".  This was the practice of unlawfully separating from your spouce that didn't require the men to continue to care for or provide for the wife's well being.  Divorce was a legal proceeding - much like it is today - that guaranteed the wife to retain her rights and allowed her to remarry.  Jesus' words are also mistranslated in the gospels.  He too confirms the Torah  - that Moses allowed "putting away" because of the hardness of their hearts.  "Divorce" and "putting away" are two separate actions.  The first is sanctioned by God and the second was allowed in very few circumstances (all involving unfailthfulness/disobedience by the woman).

It should be mentioned that proper "divorce" includes "putting away", but still allows the woman to keep her status as part of the assembly and to remarry.  Any woman who was "put away" without a proper divorce, could never remarry (because it would cause her and any of her mates to commit adultery).  Thus her ability to provide for herself (and her children if the husband put them away too) would be extremely difficult - most likely ending in her selling herself (and/or her children) into slavery just to survive.



Iam not sure that I get your point?


If divorce includes putting away a wife  and to divorce ones wife is to put her away, then don't both refer to the same action of breaking the marital bond? As regards divorce being a legal action, was not the husband just required to write out a certificate for her to show that he no longer claimed her as his wife, a certificate of divorce, this was done as a protection for her and thus she could not be accused of adultery when she became another mans as she could prove that her husband had dismissed her and no longer claimed any right to her (Deut 24:1). If on the other hand if he just dismissed her or just put her away without such a certificate then if she became another mans she could be accused of adultery as she could not prove that her husband had indeed divorced her or forfeited any claim to her.

When it comes to God hating a divorce, or the breaking of the marital union, Gen 2:24 makes the matter clear in that once formed the original intent was for that union not to be broken as confirmed by Jesus at Mat 19:9. As this was the first direction or instruction given by God with regard to the marital union, when it is not adhered to would it not indeed be offensive before him and could it not be said that he disliked the breaking of the marital union or even that he hated the breaking of the marital union and yet out of love for us and due to our imperfection he made an allowance for the breaking of the marital union so as to not condemn both the husband and the wife to a life of misery. 

Just as the expression Love can be understood in different ways Agape, phileo, storge, eros,etc so too hate can be understood to mean an abomination or even to love less as was the case with Jacob and Leah (Gen 29:31). 

Thus as God always intended the marital union to stay unbroken as a sacred bond or union and yet he made allowance for the breaking of that same union in extreme cases where a couple just could not continue together, the putting away of a wife or the divorcing of her would indeed be something hated, not an abomination that would sicken one to the depth of their being but still something hated. Such is the case with some foods, we may say that we hate something and yet it is acceptable food to put on a plate and yet raw sewerage is an abomination that never should be served up as acceptable food. 

Joleneakamama's picture
Some info on divorce and remarriage


I have seen this subject hashed out many times over the years.
The article linked below makes more sense, and takes into consideration more scripture, then any other I am aware of.

I don't have time to write a lot right now, but will make time to discuss this subject, or answer messages relating to it.


A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions. ~Oliver Wendell Holmes~

A few points to consider


I had a read of the above web site and both agree and disagree with some points made. 

Firstly Jesus was in total harmony with God's law and at no time altered that law or standard for if it is understood that he did then the assumption made in the above noted work is correct, that those who claim that Jesus did change the law, without realizing it, call him a sinner. I absolutely agree! For Jesus was no sinner but remained sinless. Thus Jesus did not in any way change God's laws.

Two points of concern 

1)"The treachery committed by those Judahite men was not in divorcing their wives, but rather in putting away their wives without the certificate of divorce required in Deuteronomy 24 (something still very common in the land of Israel today as reported on NPR in 2003). Consequently, these put away – but not divorced – women could not seek another husband without committing adultery."

(The above is directly quoted from the noted site above)

This would seem to hold merit and yet, the only lawful reason to dismiss or divorce a wife was due to something indecent "on her part", was it not (Deut 24:1-2)? The error or flaw had to be "on her part". However if we look at Mal 2: 14 the breaking of faith or the error was not with the wife but rather with the husband  as he was the one that was dismissing her without just cause. The Living Bible says "your treachery in divorcing your wives who have been faithful to you". Revised Standard says, speaking of the husband, "to who you have been faithless". New International says "Because you have broken faith with her". The NIV makes the same point. In each translation the error was with the husband not the wife as she had been a faithful and true wife and thus he had no scriptural ground to divorce her. If on the other hand the flaw was with her then the husband had the scriptural right to divorce her and thus his actions would not be a matter of treachery toward her. Such was not the case in this instance.

2) "It is doubtful that Christians who do not differentiate between divorce and putting away understand what their interpretation implies." Again directly quoted from the above site.

The fact is at Mat 19:9 Jesus was confirming the situation noted in Malachi. Again if a wife is true and loyal to her husband without fault or error he has no scriptural right to divorce her. The question is not about "putting away" or "divorcing" her but rather if he has scripturally sound grounds to do so. thus it is not about understanding "putting her away" or "divorcing her" but rather it is about the interpretation or understanding of the term "fornication". Or as Deut 24: 1-2 put it "something indecent" on her part. 

If I am wrong in my reasoning then please consider Mat 19:10. If a man was not to simply put a wife away but rather he had to divorce her so that she could be free to remarry, then why did the disciples say that if such is the case it is better not to marry? Were they saying that if I can't just put her away and leave her in limbo, if I can't make life hard for her then its better not to marry in the first place. Or was it that the people of the time were treating marriage with such utter disrespect and divorcing a wife without just cause. This lack of respect for marriage had been going on for so long that marriage was no longer seen as a permanent union and thus according to Jesus, if a wife was faithful to her husband then you had her for life.Considering that "serial monogamy" was commonly practiced in Roman society, for men that had understood that a wife could be removed from their home at any time to now find out that they were actually breaking God's law in removing a "faithful" wife just because they were tired of her and no longer wanted to be responsable for her, would be a major change in thinking would it not. If the issue was not related to the practice of "serial monogamy" then the argument for polygamy just lost it's strength.

If I am wrong then why did the disciples say what they did at Mat 19:10?

The issue is not about "putting a wife away" compared with "divorcing her" although I can see the argument for proper divorce for to just put a wife away is in no way a loving act.

When it comes to our understanding of the scriptural standard for divorce as set by Deut 24:1-2 and as confirmed by Jesus at Mat 19:9 we need to better understand the term translated as "Fornication" and indeed "Adultery" to grasp the proper meaning of the requirements for divorce. But thats another subject.


Interesting Points.


I would like to say you made a interesting point..

I would also like to say that we are all in titled to our own opinions of scripture, and I am not here to pursade you or turn you away from your own personal belief.

I will just throw out their what I believe, and how my household is.

Christ was asked by the pharsiess about divorce, and did He not respond,
"What God joins together, let not man seperate." Mark 10:9

So with that alone, in my eyes.. I personally believe - Marriage is for Life..

Yes, one can argue committing Adultry and the such, but I am not one that likes to split hairs, and more or less look at Marriage as a life long commitment that everyone involved must be truly seriously about.

When I look at it as a "For life" kind of deal, I think one is less likely to take upon a wife that he shouldn't have, and he is more vigilant.

I am not here to tell anyone their way is wrong and mine is right, I am just throwing my two cents down the wishing well to share with everyone.

May Yahweh bless you all.