Is it Okay to Divorce Your Wife if You Give Her a Piece of Paper?

I am also aware of some damaging false teachings going around that make much of the use of the words there. He tried to argue that a woman who was 'put away' was not legally divorced. Does that fit Matthew 19? Clearly not.

A while back, a website promoted the teaching that Jesus was merely opposing divorce without a certificate. That's sophistry, which can be debunked by looking at the English translations of the passage that use different English words for the Greek words. I've seen this erroneous teaching repeated on discussion forums.

Let us look at Matthew 19. I use the KJV 2000 Bible translation, which preserves the distinction between 'divorce' and 'put away' without the Elizabethan grammar.

Matthew 19
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, testing him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have you not read, that he who made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they two shall be one flesh? 6 Therefore they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They said unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He said unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts allowed you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery: and whoever marries her who is put away does commit adultery. 10 His disciples said unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

If a man just kicked his wife out of the house and sent her away, he 'puts her away', but that wasn't the legal way it happened. And that is not the topic of debate in Matthew 24. Now, this website was promoting the idea that 'put away' really means 'put away without a certificate' and that Jesus was just saying if you expel your wife without giving her a certificate of divorce and marry someone else, you commit adultery. But that does not fit the actual conversation, the scriptures they were discussing.

The Pharisees asked Jesus if it was legal to put away a wife for any cause. There were two main groups of Pharisees, the Hillel school and the Shammai school. Hillel had taught a man could divorce his wife if she displeased him, even if she had burnt the bread. Shammai taught a man may divorce his wife if she did something indecent. Was the 'any cause' idea of Hillel right or not? The Pharisees ask if a man could divorce his wife for any cause. Jesus referred back to Genesis, two shall be one flesh. What God has joined together, He argued, let not man separate.

The Pharisees refer to Deuteronomy 24, and ask why Moses allowed putting away(/sending away) a wife with a certificate. It is clear from the Pharisees' question, from the phrases used in the New Testament, and from Deuteronomy that a woman put away with a certificate is indeed put away.

In Matthew 19:9 Jesus says,

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.


Notice Moses 'suffered you to put away your wives'. How did he allow that? With certificate in hand, or without a certificate? WITH a certificate of divorce. That was the putting away the Pharisees talked about. It is what our Lord was referring to, and His response continues into verse 9.

Clearly "WHOSOEVER shall put away his wife" certainly INCLUDES those who do so with a certificate. Since that is the very topic in question based on verse 8, there should be no question at all. The issue of putting away a wife without a certificate is not mentioned.

The Pharisees did not recognize putting away a wife without a certificate as legitimate.



As mentioned above, Greek has two words associated with divorce. One has to do with the legal aspect of it. Another word, ἀπολύσῃ (apolysē) can be used for 'send away', but is also used for sending away as a word for divorce. I have found an example of the word being used that way outside of the New Testament during that era.

You may notice that many Bible scholars who know Greek do not make much of the two different words used for divorce in Matthew 19 and other passage. It may just because the distinction from the words doesn't create some doctrine that allows for free divorce and remarriage, and since it isn't relevant to such an idea, that teacher does not bring up the distinction.

I don't have good access to documents with Koine Greek apart from the New Testament, but I was able to find this.


I'll include a translation with a bit more commentary after the phrase translated 'Jewish laws'from the Greek above.

"10. But some time afterward, when Salome happened to quarrel with Costobarus, she sent him a bill of divorce, and dissolved her marriage with him. (16) Though this was not according to the Jewish laws. For with us it is lawful for an husband to do so: but a wife," from http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-15.html

Here we go again with the question as an argument opening thing.

If I give you a piece of paper, will you go back to BDF and leave us alone?

Addendum to the OP,

Please post on this thread if you are interested in discussing the topic.

If you are not interested in the topic but you love to beat up and torture puppies, old people and small children also, feel free to post why you do not think the topic should be discussed.

It's got nothing to do with that. You just don't like my post and you want to derail?

Hit any puppies recently?

Just exactly-and-precisely what do you believe 'put away' means if not 'separation-and-divorce'?

So....
Today around 65-70% of all divorces are started by the wife.

It's not men divorcing their wives its women divorcing their husbands.

And ladies....once he is gone he is GONE.

Are you addressing me?

In the OP, I'm saying the put away woman Jesus was talking about was put away with a divorce certificate, as seen from the context, unlike the idea I've circulating around the Internet that Jesus was just saying it is adultery if you divorce and remarry without giving your wife a paper first.

Those look like the stats I've read. I suspect more wives divorce husbands than husbands divorce wives. Some of those may be cases of the husband letting the wife handle the paperwork or else the wife filing a no-fault divorce when her husband had an affair or something like that. No-fault type divorces can be filed when one party could have filed using grounds, but that would have been more difficult and time-consuming

If a husband thinks his wife might leave him, it might serve him well to learn a little about custody arrangements. If she wants to go, let her move out and the kids stay in his house and go to school there. The judge may not want to disrupt the children's schedule, so the husband may get custody and not have to pay child support. A lot of men move out when marriage troubles start, then the wife stays with the kids in the house, gets child support, and he's living out of a car or his parents basement trying to scrape up the cash to pay these obligations and survives. If she wants to betray him, let her be the one who moves out. This may not help in all states.

Yes.

Are you suggesting that 'put away' without the 'writing of divorcement' does not constitute 'divorce'?

How do you define 'put away'? And, is there a valid case for it without the 'writing of divorcement'?

This is a fantasy....

State courts seldom if ever allow the fathers have custody unless your wife is a Crack whore and currently incarcerated for such crimes and then it's still kinda iffy if the father will get custody instead of a crappy visitation schedule.

So the most common result is she divorces you...and you get to live on roughly a third of your net salary while ex wife gets a third of your gross income before taxes as "child support " and you get every other weekend and one dinner night the off weeks to actually see your kids....
Meanwhile she is pouring poison in your kid's ears constantly about how the dad is such a bad person and if they don't feel safe to immediately call the police if he tries to discipline them at all. And if miraculously somehow the dad has maintained a relationship with his kids after college (he has to pay for that too) then he finally gets the reprieve of sending his ex wife child support and is free financially of his ex wife and the kids can now see their father on a more free schedule....but usually that ship has sailed long ago.

That's the "normal " divorce in the USA.

I probably can't communicate this effectively, but you are correct that woman are divorcing their men. Woman are actually taking the lead on many family decisions. Actually, women are in positions to lead the family, lead jurisdictions, are leaders and ministers at churches, and even leaders of large nations. I also think we are seeing in part and parcel a complete departure of scripture and God's will for men. Not women, men.

It started at the fall. It was the woman who sinned and ate what she shouldn't have. It was the first rebellion. And when God punished her with pain at childbirth in chapter 3, He also punished her with something far more insidious. He cursed her by saying her "desire will be for her husband and he will rule over her". The word desire was not a sexual desire. She already had that kind of desire because God told them both to go out and multiply. The desire was to be her own person. To not serve the man. To not be ruled by the man.

I think we're seeing this play out today, but beware, it will ultimately cause a negative consequence because men are getting weaker by allowing this to happen. And when the tipping point is reached, the woman will not have men strong enough to protect her.

To indicate just how indoctrinated, we are with this slow moving "transfer" of strength with all it's weird consequences, i.e. transexual/homosexual/effeminate men/absence of the family structure, I will also fall victim by writing what I'm writing. A thousand excuses will be made. A million arguments will be won in favor of the woman's lead. People who say what I just said will be cursed and hated and it's all a part of the judgement. It's not our will that's done.

I think the world wars (and wars in general) get rid of a lot of masculine men. The remaining men are either too old or too young, and women have to fill in and take new roles. Over time, the women get more educated and get more opportunities in the workspace, in that sense they are "stronger" and become more self-reliant. I think it is a matter of the chicken or the egg game. With the war example, men get weaker then women get stronger, not vice versa.

The deck is stacked against dad's. I spoke with someone who worked at the state house in Hawaii. Over 90% of children went with moms in a divorce there. The situation you describe sounds fairly typical, but depending on the state judges do consider not disrupting the children's routine.

Usually, the man goes outside to get something left in the car in the rain, extreme cold, or hail, not the wife. If a couple argue, the stereotypical response is for the man to sleep on the couch. If the couple decide to divorce, a lot of men will move out.

On a few occasions when my wife and I argued and she didn't want to stay in the same bed I stayed there. I figured if she didn't want to make up and didn't want to sleep in the bed with me, that was on her. But she's occassionaly done that sort of thing when she wants to pray and if she wanted to pray in a situation like that it's probably good. I do tend to face the weather to get stuff out of the car.

Not sure why this is on a singles forum
,

?!

Traditonally Jewsh custom there was a prenup or marriage contract that couples signed called a ketubah

Most marriages in cultures worldwide have a piece of paper that is certifying their marriage, like a marriage licence. I dont know if this is torn up upon divorce, or what happens to the rings, but its just to make it official isnt it as a legal document.

If you want a divorce, you do have to sign papers or do something and if you are the wife you may want to change your surname rather than still go by your ex hsubands surname. Otherwise peoole will still think you are married by your last name, so its probably more important for wives who dont want to be wives anymore to get that done than for husband because he never has to change HIS name.

One of the problems with feminism is women forming a political coalition to fight in favor of issues that are of (perceived) benefit to women, whereas men do not do the same. Combined with poor left wing morals, this can be very damaging.

I suppose one could argue that we have had so many wars that we have killed off the aggressive genes in men, leaving weaker men and therefore women have taken more prominent roles. I suppose one could argue that 70 years of relative peace, aside from the Balkans and a few other issues, could be the result of aggressive men dying off in battle and not contributing their genes as much to the gene pool. But during that time there was a cold war to unite much of Europe with a common enemy and gave them an incentive to work together. But would I disagree with a biological hypotheses. War may remove a percentage of the population in men who are aggressive. It leaves behind pacifist--who one might argue has more 'peaceful' genes. But it also leaves behind men who for whatever reason are able to survive warfare, which might contribute clever aggressiveness to the gene pools.

I think women having some of the prominent roles they have in politics and society in general is more of a sociological phenomenon than a biological one. A more laid back attitude toward war, and along with it a loss of traditional concepts of male virtues, are likely primarily sociological issues.

Women having leadership roles, a right to vote, and prominence in various spheres, IMO, is a result of male (in some cases misguided) benevolence or abdication of responsibility.

If feminist politics pushes too hard against men, I suspect in the long term there will be backlash. I don't think gender egalitarianism in society, especially in non-Christian society is sustainable in the long term over the centuries because it does rely on male benevolence.

I live in nz where women suffrage got the first vote ...
the reasons behind that were because many men actually werent benevolant at all. They were drunk and beating up their wives and children!

The reasoning behind obtaining the vote was to protect women and children from drunken men. If women had a say in legislation they could ban acohol or restrict which they actually did do for a while. It didnt entirely work but it was a thing esp led by Christian women Temperance unions.

Know your history before you start railing about ungodly feminists. Their intentions may have not been what you thought.

Wasn't it men who voted to give women the vote, out of a sense of benevolence? Men gave women the vote.

I don't know how the wife-beating drunks voted, if at all.

So then handle 1 Cor 7: 27,28

1Co 7:
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed (divorced) from a wife? seek not a wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

In the latter part of the chapter, Paul does not claim to have a direct word from the Lord, but gives advice:

12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. (NKJV)

This could be the close of that section where he gives his own advice, depending on how one interprets the phrases here:
40 But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment—and I think I also have the Spirit of God.
(NKJV)

In this section, he does with some special cases. One is the Christian married to the unbeliever. Are they allowed to stay together? Ezra had Israel send the pagan wives away. Paul doesn't mention that and we do not know the contents of what the Corinthians wrote to him in regard to marriage.

This section you quoted from is on the topic of virgins.

25 Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy. 26 I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress—that it is good for a man to remain as he is: 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.
(NKJV)

'Virgins' is in the feminine, so talking about girls, not male virgins.

The NIV is not the most conservative version, but this is consistent with the traditional interpretation, and some commentaries.

"Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife."

This may be talking about being loosed from an engagement situation where one or possibly both parties agree not to marry. I've seen that general idea in a commentary.

The other interpretation is that Paul jumps away from the virgin topic and says if you are loosed from a marriage and remarry that's okay. But I don't consider a man just up and deciding to leave his wife and give her a certificate because he is bored with her and marrying another woman, contrary to Christ and Paul's teachings, to be 'loosed'.

One commentator suggested 'loosed' includes singles who have never made a commitment Based on Job 39:5 (presumably in the LXX) but that seems far fetched to me.