And now they’ve turned on the heat. It seems that just as JPO turned up somewhere in Zebbug (is it mass? is it the band club? the article does not help) he was greeted with a massive placard stating “God is against divorce”. Let’s just set aside the failure of the placard to specify whose God it is talking about exactly (not all have gone on record as being against divorce – and even YHWH has been know to give second swings at marriage in certain circumstances) and concentrate on the most basic and obvious corollary to that damn poster:
GOD HAS NO VOTE
… and we don’t seem to be seeing too many posters pointing that out either. Clear enough?
***
And since we will inevitably have to face the scripture quoting ministers of the Imposition J’accuse provides you with a handy guide to a clear interpretation of Deuteronomy 24 that incidentally deals with the question of divorce (both in the times of Moses and Jesus). In sum God is not against divorce, God never commands you to divorce but God permits you to divorce.
Related articles by Zemanta
- God understands divorce (sincemydivorce.com)
- The scientific secrets to a happy marriage (telegraph.co.uk)
22 replies on “Breaking News: God has no vote”
…but his minions do… :/
I’ve just heard this breaking news on CNN.
I forgot however who said God has a vote.
You imply the Jewish God sometimes approved divorce. However God hates divorce according to the Old Testament in Malachi 2: 16.
Incidentally do you know God has an official website and email addresses?
yeah, but still no vote.
Here’s one of my favourite, and most informed, smackdowns to people who cite the bible as a source of dogmatic policy:
BARTLET
Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.
JENNA JACOBS
I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
BARTLET
Yes, it does. Leviticus.
JENNA JACOBS
18:22
BARTLET
Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here.
I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.
(small chuckles from the guests) She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, and
always clears the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While
thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff, LeoO McGarry, insists on working
on the Sabbath, Exodus 35:2, clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here’s one that’s really important,
’cause we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes
us unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins
still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be
together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn
my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
Jenna Jacobs fidgets uncomfortably.
(THE WEST WING, “THE MIDTERMS”)
here’s the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs
The usual delinquency from sappitelli who think that those who participate in blogshit represent more than say 2% of voters.
fuck yeah (say)
Wow; such an educated riposte from the erudite elite in brussels and lux.
erudite elite (fuck yeah reprise)
It is very easy to be rude and vulgar on cyberspace; quite another matter in close encounters …..
ooh lah he said “close encounters”
P.S. Get an education andrew Farrugia (as Lowell would say). “Fuck yeah” is not being rude. It’s a pop reference. You must be dying to resolve matters “in close encounters”. What with I may ask? Would the words “Bible Bashing” be taken more literally in your case… ? I shall waste no time in finding out.
Hello David. You want scriptures? For every Malachi 2:16 there’s a different interpretation. Here’s one you (and presumably Sapitello expert in E-scatology Humour farrugia) won’t enjoy (happy reading):
We have heard this Scripture: “the Lord God of Israel says that HE HATES DIVORCE” (Malachi 2:16). This is almost always quoted as if God hates all divorces in general. But that’s just not true. We have previously read from the Bible books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Deuteronomy and 1Corinthians that God is not against divorce. Then why all the confusion concerning why God said that “He hates divorce?” The reason for the confusion is because there are TWO “kinds” of marriages and TWO “divorces” being mentioned in the Malachi 2:11-16 passage.
The “divorces” were not official divorces; they didn’t need to be. They were already previously married and “unofficially” married again. The Hebrew word shalach means “putting away”― a separation, as correctly translated in most Bibles. However, the King James and a number of newer versions have incorrectly translated shalach as to mean: divorce. It never meant divorce and it doesn’t mean divorce. The word was most likely translated as “divorce” to fit what was taught in the church. Shalach is just a common word used throughout the Old Testament which means to: go, separate or to send. That’s it!
So why did God angrily say that He “…hated putting away [a separation]?” “…Because you have not kept My ways [concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage] but have SHOWN PARTIALITY IN THE LAW” (Malachi 2:9). The Law specifically stated that when a man got a divorce from his wife that he was to write “…her a CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE, put it in her hand, AND [shalach] send her out [put her away]…” (Deuteronomy 24:1). God also commanded them not to marry anyone who did not serve him ― who served a foreign god (See Nehemiah 13:25-30).
Instead, men separated from their wives without ever giving them a Certificate of Divorce and then illegally married someone else. This is why the Lord said that they were still “their wife by covenant.” The marriage covenant had never been dissolved by the Divorce Certificate.
“The Lord’s holy institution which He loves…the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth …[and] SHE [STILL] IS YOUR COMPANION AND YOUR WIFE BY COVENANT. For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce [shalach], [separating without a Certificate of Divorce]…. He has [illegally] married the daughter of a foreign god. May the Lord cut off …the man who does this being awake and aware” (Malachi 2:11,12a,14b,c,16a).
Because these men had remarried illegally ― separated from their wives without giving them a Certificate of Divorce, they were in adultery as Jesus stated: “Furthermore it has been said, “Whoever PUTS AWAY [separates from {apoluo}] his wife, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE. But I say to you that whoever PUTS AWAY [separates and remarries without being divorced from] his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery: and whoever marries a woman who is PUT AWAY [separated without being divorced {apoluo}] commits adultery” (Matthew 5:31-32). (The Lord never forgot about the Malachi incident when He came to earth to redeem lost man).
The Old Testament Hebrew word shalach and the New Testament Greek word apoluo are equivalent which will be discussed later.
Because these disobedient men still had “un-divorced” wives, the Lord did not command them to give their illegal wives a Certificate of Divorce, rather, they simply had to “separate, put them away, [shalach].” SO DID GOD HATE DIVORCE? NO! RATHER, GOD HATED THAT THE HUSBANDS WERE SEPARATING FROM THEIR WIVES WITHOUT GIVING THEM A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE WHICH WOULD ENABLE THEM TO GET REMARRIED. THIS IS WHAT GOD HATES!
The men of Israel were SEPARATING from their wives for self-gratifying reasons. God Himself was a “witness” at their original marriage ceremony which was still in effect. The marriage covenant was never dissolved by a Certificate of Divorce. The men remarried outside their own culture (race) and tribe. God considered the children they bore unholy because of the mixed marriages bringing curses into their families (See Ezra 9:1,2, Nehemiah 13:26-30).
Because of these unauthorized marriages, the Word of God came to Ezra and Nehemiah to have the men and women of Israel who had done this thing, to separate from their spouse and even from their children (See Ezra 9:1, 11-12, 10:3, Nehemiah 13:23-27). In this situation, God’s command was to “put them away, separate yourselves from them!” This was NOT the kind of marriage to which God was saying, “I hate divorce!” He was saying loudly, “Get out of these wrong marriages!”
DIVORCE IS A METHOD TO SEPARATE THE ONE, AND MAKE THEM INTO TWO just as a surgeon’s knife is used to separate the cancerous flesh from the healthy flesh. Both operations are good. Divorce can be used to kill a righteous marriage, just as a surgeon’s knife can be used to kill a healthy person.
The Greek word apoluo: is the equivalent of the Hebrew word: shalach.
Don’t get bogged down with this crap. Let them quote the Bible.
I agree with Alex – mining the same dark shaft as the Bible-bashers gets nobody anywhere. So long as revealed truth is held to be absolute, then it becomes an eternal tit-for-tat of quotation and interpretation.
Let them find, somewhere, a phrase in the Bible that says “it would vex the mighty Jehovah should the islanders of Malta allow divorce into law”. Encourage them to wave that around on a placard, and then repeat your lovely headline. God has no vote. Ancient books do not rule the world except in science fiction and fantasy.
Amen.
What I do find intriguing is that even if we had to discuss the Bible and its approach to divorce (Mr Bible what do you think?) we would find (as seen from the link) that the Catholic Imposition even gets its own interpretation wrong. Which is why I just googled and provided links. I have no intention of going on a bible-bashing contest.
As for Ancient Book not Ruling the World I do not concur completely. They have been know to have a grip on vast amounts of people: Mao’s Red Book comes to mind as well as the uncodified laws of various civilisations (Sparta, Rome) could also have a bookish element. Most times the very religious element is hidden behind a more direct codificaton that regulates the times: Mosaic law for example is a case in point. Not too distant from Hammurabi’s Code. The irony is that people like David are quoting Malachi to apply a millenia old rule on divorce (supposedly inspired by God) to modern society. Next they will tell us you cannot sit on a bed after a woman who is having her period has sat there.
All very good examples. In most of them, however, you could argue that the books in question were contemporary rather than ancient.
It is unfortunate that we are still the victims of committee squabbling, copyist errors and translation distortions amassed over millennia.
PS I loved the Pratchett quote. Perhaps this is the only rational response to “attack by Biblical quotation”: pick a book at random and read out a few lines, and finish with a “q.e.d”
I did not even quote the Bible but just mentione the reference regarding God and divorce. Now the Bible is clear in what it says.
I have always been taught that “in claris non fit interpetatio”. What was quoted is a classic case of how to interpret the Bible to mean the opposite of what it says and gatta ci cova, this dubious interpretation has been taken from a pro-divorce website.
I am now quoting and explaining the phrase in its context based on a Protestant version of the Bible (so there is no Catholic imposition or interpretation):
In Malachi, chapter two, God’s people are accused of two forms of treachery, infidelity to God’s covenant and infidelity to the marriage covenant.
….
These unfaithful priests were tolerating infidelity to God. In Scripture, God’s relationship with His people is often portrayed as a marriage. “Judah has dealt treacherously, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem, for Judah has profaned the Lord’s institution which He loves: he has married the daughter of a foreign god” (Malachi 2:11).
God no longer heeded their prayers. He no longer accepted their offerings. Why? “Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (Malachi 2:14).
These unfaithful priests were tolerating marital infidelity and divorce.
Oneness in Spirit is required to produce godly offspring. “But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth” (Malachi 2:15).
God hates divorce because of the damage it does. “For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce, ‘for it covers one’s garment with violence,’ says the Lord of hosts. ‘Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously'” (Malachi 2:16). http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/godhates.html
“I did not even quote the Bible but just mentione the reference regarding God and divorce.”
The day you want to be taken seriously Dave make sure that your opening statement does not contain an inherent contradiction. You bloody well quoted the bible unless Malachi 2:16 is some hermeneutic reference to a timezone in a forgotten corner of the world.
That’s very good.
But on the other hand, Samuel Pepys, in his diary entry for 4th January 1661, says:
Q.E.D
I did not quote as I did not use quotation marks and repeat the exact words but referred to a particular verse in Malachi where God condemns divorce.
While the Bible interests me, I am not a Bible basher. I referred to the Bible to contradict your point on the Jewish God and divorce.