Post substantially updated Aug-Sept 2026.
In Coverdale’s translation of Malachi 2:16, God message to husbands is “If you hate your wife, release her! Let her go free! And give her a clothing for the scorn. Look well to your spirit, and do not despise her.”
Malachi 2:16 was identical in the 1535 Coverdale Bible and the 1537 Matthew Bible.
Here I am giving the gently updated spelling of Malachi 2:16 from Ruth Magnusson Davis’s article Altars Covered in Tears:
If thou hatest her, put her away, sayeth the Lord God of Israel and give her a clothing for the scorn, says the Lord of Hosts. Look well then to your spirit, and despise her not.
“Give her a clothing for the scorn” means the husband must compensate her for the wrong he has done her, to mitigate the poverty and stigma she might endure as a divorced woman.
The Coverdale Bible is the work of Myles Coverdale. He translated the Bible into English from other language versions which existed in the early 1500s. His sources were Martin Luther’s German translation, the Latin edition of Pagninus, the Latin Vulgate, the early German translations of the Zurich divines, and commentaries by the Church Fathers and others. He also consulted the Greek Septuagint.
In 2018, thanks to Ruth’s article Altars Covered in Tears, I learned how Malachi 2:16 was rendered in the Matthew Bible. This inspired me to research how Malachi 2:16 had been rendered in other old versions of Scripture. It’s been a fascinating journey. I’ve looked at the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Targum Jonathan, the Latin Vulgate, the Hebrew Masoretic Text, and all the English Bible translations which came before the King James Bible.
I invite scholars and church leaders to look at my paper Malachi 2:16, ancient versions and English translations, and how they apply to domestic abuse. I’m sure it could be improved, but I’ve done my best with the skills and capacity I have.
My paper sets out the various versions of the verse: the Septuagint (of which there are several variants), Dead Sea Scrolls, Targum Jonathan, Latin Vulgate, all the English Bible translations which preceded the King James Bible, and English translations of the Septuagint. All these versions have the verb hate in the 2nd person (you hate) except for the Masoretic where the verb hate is 3rd person (he hates). Coverdale’s translation has the 2nd person “you hate” which suggests that Coverdale was translating from versions of Malachi which had followed the Septuagint.
But whether the verb ‘hate’ is 2nd or 3rd person makes no significant difference to the meaning. Husbands who hate their wives are being commanded to release their wives from the bond of wedlock.
In Exodus, Pharoah hated and enslaved the Israelites, so God instructed Moses to tell Pharaoh “Let my people go!” The verb “let go” is the Hebrew word shallach. Malachi 2:16 also uses shallach (send away, put away), hinting that the oppressive husband is like Pharaoh, and the oppressed wife is like the enslaved Israelites.
Myles Coverdale construed “put her away, and give her a clothing for the scorn” as an imperative — a double-barrelled command. Exclamation marks were not used in Coverdale’s day, so the strength of the command may not be apparent to modern readers. But in colloquial English, Malachi’s message to husbands is: “If you hate your wife, your mustn’t compel her to live under your hatred! Let her go! Set her free! And compensate her for the suffering you’ve caused her!”
And his message to church leaders is: “Set the oppressed wife free! Let her get divorced. If the husband is slandering his wife to others, put a stop to those rumours by publicly vindicating her. Don’t let the community of believers look down on her because she’s been divorced. And as far as you are able, make sure the husband compensates the divorced woman so she doesn’t have to live in poverty.”
Rightly translated, Malachi 2:16 is consistent with all the other Bible passages that allow, commend and even command divorce.
If the worldwide church wants to diminish the prevalence of domestic abuse, it must face the fact that both the Old and New Testaments have laws and precepts which restrain men from abusing women, and protect the dignity and safety of abused women. (If you’re wondering how I define abuse go here. Or google cryingoutforjustice.blog/faq )
There are six biblical passages which affirm that if a husband is abusing his wife, divorce is the responsible thing to do.
- Exodus 21:7-11 allows an abused wife to divorce a hard-hearted husband. It also says male householders (employers) mustn’t exploit their female bond-servants (workers).
- Deuteronomy 21:10-14 entitles a mistreated wife to divorce a negligent or abusive husband. And it commands the negligent or abusive husband to let his wife go.
- Malachi 2:16 commands an abusive husband to release his wife from the marriage bond, and it upholds the dignity and safety of the divorced wife.
- Matthew 19:9 permits divorce for adultery.
- 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 commands the church to promptly expel the abuser and treat him as an unbeliever — “hand him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.”
- 1 Corinthians 7:15 permits divorce for domestic abuse, and it tells us to acquiesce when an unbeliever divorces a believer.
We can also invoke the New Testament texts which urge separation from professing believers who walk disorderly refusing to provide for their dependent relatives. We should separate from traitorous truce-breakers who verbally abuse and slander their victims. We must have nothing to do with headstrong and haughty hypocrites who are unkind and cold to their family yet wear a facade of godliness to disguise their corrupt character.
Bad translation has bred bad traditions
Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elements of the world, rather than Christ. (Colossians 2:8, CSB)
‘God hates divorce’ is a clichéd dictum. It sounds like a formal pronouncement from an authoritative source, but it’s a mistranslation that has been way overused.
God must deplore the ‘God hates divorce’ dictum because it is diametrically opposed to what He conveyed through the prophet Malachi.
Many Christians recycle the dictum without ever questioning whether it is true. Those who spout it betray a lack of original thought. They simply believe it must be true because they heard it preached and because so many versions of the Bible have translated Malachi 2:16 wrongly.
The following translations all have it wrong:
- “I hate divorce” says the Lord God of Israel… (NASB, AMP, NLT, NET, MSG, GW, GNT, ICB, NCV, NLV, ERV, NRSV, CJB, EXB and others)
- The LORD God of Israel says that He hates divorce… (NKJ, ISV, KJV and others)
The ‘God hates divorce’ dictum contradicts other parts of Scripture.
If God unilaterally hates divorce, why does God tolerate divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-3? Why does God positively commend and command divorce in Ezra? Why does God Himself divorce Israel? Why did Jesus say divorce was permitted for adultery?
In my experience, if you point out to people the contradiction between the ‘God hates divorce’ dictum and the rest of Scripture, they brush you off. They say “Well, God hates the harm that divorce does to families.” Or “God hates the breakdown of marriage.” Or “God hates divorce, but you can ask God to forgive you if you are divorced.”
If you really press them, they shuffle and say, “Well, God hates divorce, but yeah, he permits it for adultery and desertion by an unbeliever.” But this leaves abuse victims out in frozen Siberia unless someone tells them that abuse is a type of desertion and an abuser is an unbeliever no matter what he may profess with his mouth.
If anyone challenges the ‘God hates divorce’ mantra, they’re likely to be persecuted by those who are resistant to change. I know a Hebrew scholar who was threatened with a charge of heresy for putting forward his alternate translation of Malachi 2:16. The fellow who threatened to charge him with heresy didn’t even know Hebrew, so he couldn’t evaluate the proposed translation on its merits; he was just outraged that the scholar was challenging the long-standing tradition ‘God hates divorce’. The scholar was a part-time seminary professor and part-time pastor; he has now left that seminary and its denomination.
Many Christians in academia, church leaders, denominations, and biblical counselors don’t want to touch the doctrine of divorce with a barge-pole, because it’s such a hot potato.
I think their stance constitutes nonfeasance (dereliction of duty, pastoral negligence) because they’re neglecting the spiritual suffering of abused spouses, particularly abused wives.
If you are an egalitarian academic or advocate, please read my Plea to egalitarian academics and advocates in Christendom. The common understandings of the doctrine of divorce need to be reviewed and recalibrated, so that abused spouses will no longer be clobbered by the ‘God hates divorce’ mantra.
To understand why Malachi was identical in the Coverdale Bible and the Matthew Bible, go here and here.
Archived copy of the printed Coverdale Bible — the link takes you to Malachi chapter 2.
Learn more about Myles Coverdale at Coverdale Bible—Full Story.
My Malachi 2:16 Digest lists all my important posts on Malachi 2:16.
My Divorce FAQ addresses all the frequently asked questions which victims and church leaders have about the doctrine of divorce.
Discover more from Crying Out For Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rin,
It’s horrible being subjected to the constant yelling and put downs. The other scary thing is he could start becoming physically abusive.
I agree with Barbara.
I suggest taking the following steps before you actually file for the divorce, and please do not tell him you’re doing this or your child if they’re of age to understand; you’ll have to hide the information:
1.) Write down every account number for: Savings, checking, investment accounts, life insurance policies, anything that is an income account.
2.) Write down every account number of your expenses, make copies of these bills: Mortgage, electric, gas, water, credit cards, cellphones, landline phone, car insurance, car registration, license renewal, etc….
Keep receipts for food, household cleaning, laundry, personal hygiene products, clothing, gas for the car, haircuts, medical, dental, vision, school expenses, etc….anything and everything.
The reason for tracking all income and expenses is to be able to prove to the court how much you need per month to continue in the lifestyle your accustomed to. To get enough alimony and child support you need to be able to prove those amounts.
3.) Make copies of his paycheck stubs as far back as you can.
4.) Make copies of your tax returns with copies of the W-2s for the last 5 years.
Make a few copies of each type of item listed above. You will have to produce a copy of each to your lawyer who will provide them to the judge. Never give your lawyer an original of anything, only a copy in case they lose something.
Don’t give in and settle just to get it over with. I’ve seen women say, “I just wanted it over with and told the court to give him everything.” They all regretted it down the line.
Be prepared so you can get the financial support you’re entitled to.
When you are ready to file, don’t announce it to him. Also don’t tell family or friends; they may slip and tell him.
I can still remember driving to the lawyer, wanting to turn back, but if I had stayed with the abuser I don’t believe I would be alive now. God is with you and He will be with you every step of the way through the process.
No one can tell you when to leave, only you know when you’re ready.
Does he mean set her free as in divorce her or set her free as in if she wants to divorce him, that he should not try to keep her?
As I read it, the primary and most obvious meaning is this: If a husband hates his wife, he should divorce her. The secondary meaning, which I infer by extension from the primary meaning, is that if the hate-filled husband does not initiate divorce, and the wife wants to divorce him because of his evil attitudes and behaviour, then he should not try to obstruct the divorce process.
Thanks for asking the question, Josie, and welcome to the blog. :) You might like to check out our New Users’ info and our FAQ page.
I was married to an abusive husband for nearly 2 decades. I had children with him. I only stayed because I didn’t want to sin against God, as everyone told me it would be a sin to divorce.
I am so thankful I found a Christian counselor who told me the same thing you say in your post. He told me that I was being abandoned and the marriage was already broken by my husband. He helped me see that God didn’t want me to continue to be abused and that I wasn’t sinning.
I’m glad you found a Christian counsellor who told you you had grounds for divorce and you wouldn’t be sinning if you divorced your abusive husband. So many women get told the opposite. Thanks for commenting, Torpidcrow.
Thank you for your post, right now I’m going through a horrible situation with my husband of 20 years. I found out two years ago that he was addicted to narcotic pills, than he stopped working. Until today he has no job, apparently he stopped the pills but he refuses to go to work, and he doesn’t help me with our daughter who is [age redacted] old.
I contacted one of the Pastors in the congregation and after talking to him he assured me that divorce can only happen with infidelity on his or my part, and now the two Pastors don’t want to talk to me. When they see me they turn the other way, this makes me very sad 😞 and makes me wonder if they just want me out. They are supposed to be my brothers in Christ but they won’t even want to see me now.
My life it’s been a constant suffering, my husband is constantly insulting me, screaming in my face, putting me down, now my health is declining and we may lose the house, not enough income. All I can think of is my daughter, please keep me in your prayers, I need to make a decision, sometimes I feel guilty when I think about divorce but I don’t think I can take the abuse much longer. 😭
[For safety and protection, the age was redacted. Paragraph breaks and some punctuation added to enhance readability. Editors.]
Dear Rin, my heart goes out to you. Your husband is definitely abusing you.
Those pastors are abusing you too, by telling you that adultery is the only ground for divorce. They are ignorant, and incapable of rightly dividing the word of truth. Their attitude towards you shows they are cowards, because they prefer to stonewall you rather than meet you in your suffering and be willing to re-examine their notions about divorce.
You may have already looked at many of my posts about divorce. But here is a link to my most important posts about divorce. Hopefully by reading them they will build your confidence that abuse is grounds for divorce and those pastors are wrong.
What about divorce?
Welcome to the blog. :) Thank you for taking the time and trouble to comment at this post. I’m burned out and am not publishing new material, but I still read all comments that come in.
James, thank you so much for your carefully thought out approach. It’s rare.
Hi Ruth, I see this is your first comment (or the first comment in which you gave a particular email address).
Welcome to the blog! :) Bless you for commenting and I hope you continue to do so.
Thank you and great job! God hates sin and in a divorce there is usually plenty of it. Since God uses no measuring stick to apply to His feeling on sin it makes sense that He does not like divorce. I wish abusive husbands would release their wives and provide for them without holding a grudge.
Hi, Lucy, I wholeheartedly agree with what you said here:
I hope you don’t mind me mentioning that when I read your comment I felt a bit stung by this sentence:
That sentence could be interpreted to mean that BOTH parties are ‘sinning plenty’ in a divorce. I am guessing you didn’t mean it that way, but it could be read that way.
To say “there is sin in divorce” is to imply that the act of divorcing an abuser is sinful….so the victim is sinning by divorcing the abuser. Is that what you meant? If it isn’t what you meant, perhaps you could clarify.
One of our commenters (Ruth Magnusson Davis) wrote:
So much experienced, so much learned since my non-physically abusive ex-“husband” divorced me….
The only thought that struggles through the mostly-awful memories is that at least (as a Christian woman married to an unbeliever), I was never hammered with the words “God hates divorce….”.
Finding Answers, I could make a black-humour joke and say:
The moral of the story is, if you are a Christian woman marry an unbeliever, because if he turns out to be an abuser and the marriage falls apart, Christians are less likely to hammer you with “God hates divorce”. :(
Excellent! Marriage is not meant to be bondage and God’s LOVE for women permits them to be free, in my understanding, when there is abuse, dishonor and contempt. Unrepentant abuse of any form IS adultery….it is an abomination…. Can you image Jesus abusing HIS bride the church?
Hi Beloved,
For your protection, I changed the screen name you submitted with your comment to the most recent screen name you used on the ACFJ blog.
I was concerned the screen name you submitted might be too revealing.
Thank you, Barbara! You brought such light to Scriptures that have been twisted to essentially re-abuse the spouse who divorces an abuser. I had thought the physical, emotional, financial and social abuse was so horribly painful, however it was nothing in comparison to what “believers” used to abuse me with when I left the abuser and literally fled for my life, they took these exact Scriptures and used them as an unrecognizable and evil sword to accuse me of being out of the Lord’s will. Thank you for your inspiring message and sharing of the interpretation, this was another incredible message.
I attended a ‘divorce recovery’ program at a local church. I was wanting to work harder at healing and growing. I was hoping to grow friendships and be supported. Unfortunately ’God hates divorce’ and only allows for divorce with adultery and the unbeliever leaving was their stance. I attended multiple meetings and left more hurt and raw each time. I finally chose to stop doing this and left the group. Thank you for all of your study and research. God loves us and has a plan!
Hi, After20, welcome to the blog! :) Thanks so much for sharing your experience. ‘Divorce recovery’ groups are a mixed bag, from what I’ve heard. Some seem to be led by people who recognise abuse as grounds for divorce. Others are led by the kinds of people who led yours: the ones who re-abuse the victims of abuse with the “God hates divorce” mantra.
If the divorce recovery group you went to was under the DivorceCare banner, you might like to read this: Critique of DivorceCare’s “Choosing Wisely: Before You Divorce” Program
Part of the problem is that DivorceCare does not take a really clear stand on the question of whether abuse is grounds for divorce. I have heard that the videos which are presented to participants in the program do not take a clear stand either. I have also heard that some local leaders tried to get the DivorceCare head office to modify its program to explicitly say that abuse is grounds for divorce, and they got a wishy washy response from head office. Unless the teaching says explicitly and unreservedly that abuse IS grounds for divorce, there will always be room for leaders to toxify it with their own rusted-on presumptions that ‘God hates divorce’, not to mention other twisted interpretations of Scripture that are weaponised against victims of abuse.
Yes, this was the DivorceCare group. The video on when God allows divorce did not include divorcing for abuse. Instead it encouraged the woman to try to reconcile with her spouse. I was shocked! (Although I myself had tried everything I could to get along with my husband by reading books on marriage, joining a support group for those in a difficult marriage, counseling with him and soul care at church. Nothing worked because he did not want to change.) But after the video I clarified what it said with the group and then left in tears.
Thankfully I read the Bible and have a relationship with the Lord. I know He would not want anyone to be constantly hurt emotionally, verbally, or physically. You will not lose your salvation by divorce. I left the group and feel comfortable with that decision. I may just have to start my own support group someday!
Hi After20,
For your safety and protection, I changed the screen name you submitted with your comment to the screen name you used in your earlier comments.
The way I began my advocacy was by setting up a support group for Christian women who had experienced domestic abuse. Initially, I didn’t have the courage to start a group. I just wanted to join a group — but I couldn’t find one. I mentioned this to a worker at the Salvation Army women’s refuge which I’d gone to several times in emergencies. She said she didn’t know a support group, but they (the Salvation Army women’s centre) would support me if I wanted to start one up. They let me use one of their rooms for the support group weekly meetings, and let me use their photocopier to produce flyers and pamphlets. That was how I got my fledgling wings as an activist, back in 1999 / 2000. I would not have done it unless someone (someone in authority) had believed me and encouraged me in my idea.
It drives me crazy whenEVER I meet an abused wife echo the words spoken to her: “But….God hates Divorce”
That Scripture is being spoken to MEN and their treatment of their wives! Oh my goodness, I don’t understand how people can’t SEE this! Even Jesus echoed Moses’s words about setting her free because of the hardened state of the hearts of the husbands towards their wives!
Proverbs 6:16-19 describes what “God hates”:
All those things also hurts a spouse beyond imagination…. Whatever hurts a spouse, also hurts God. Whatever God despises, hurts a spouse.
We must repent and avoid it all – at all costs. Become unyoked, if necessary to save your own soul. Proverbs 4:23:
And God needs you…
It wasn’t until I was out of an abusive marriage that I truly realized how much I put a wayward husband before God.
Truth! Thank you for the verses you shared.
Hi, Anewanon, thanks for your comment. Proverbs 6:16-19 is a very good description of the mindset and conduct of an abuser.
You said:
Actually, I don’t agree with that idea. In my book and in this post I wrote years ago, I explained why I think that idea is incorrect.
I get the impression that many people who have read my book or read that blog post have not understood my argument. That includes Jeff Crippen, with whom I was co-leading this blog when I wrote the post. It also includes Sam Powell, who I know has read my book. I don’t know why people have not understood my argument. I wish I knew. I tried my best to explain my reasoning. Perhaps my communication was not clear. Or perhaps the idea that “Moses allowed divorce for hardness of heart” is just so entrenched in people’s minds that it can’t be dislodged. Maybe you and other readers here would like to read that post of mine and give me some feedback. It would help me if you did, because I sometimes despair of ever getting my idea through to people. And I need feedback to help me understand where and why the misunderstandings are happening.
Barb wrote:
I don’t think you are doing anything wrong, Barb. The way I see it, at least, the problems are in human nature, the nature of the issue and in the nature of how the passage in Deuteronomy is expressed.
When faced with a foreign (in terms of everyday life) concept or language, we tend to do an impromptu interpretation to fit it in with our present understanding – and all the problems that are inherent in that.
Or we defer to an authority figure (who does the same thing) to interpret it for us – and all the problems inherent in that and more.
If the issue is not particularly relevant to us when we first come across it, we tend to make a superficial judgement of it or accept an ‘authority’s’ opinion without much critical thought and move on.
But when, later, the issue does become relevant, we tend to trot out the ill-considered previous judgement and stick to it. Because we have considered this before – right? But we haven’t really considered it at all.
Then we have the problems inherent in abstraction.
The passage (Deut 24:1-4), as Barb has pointed out, is a conditional proposition and its conditional nature is not made very clear in the passage. “Conditional” automatically means we are dealing in abstractions.
Most people are untrained or unpractised at abstract thinking. There is little call for it in most peoples’ everyday lives. So the proposition is hard to grasp to start with so we revert to the behaviour previously mentioned.
Plus, the structure of the abstraction is of a particular nature – that of, “If this, Then that”, which is also a building block of computer logic:
(If this applies, then that will necessarily follow” – If the bough you are sitting on breaks, then you will fall to the ground. The “then” becomes the next “if” for the next block. If you fall to the ground, then you will hurt yourself – this not a very good analogy but I hope it helps.)
Anyway, this particular “If this, Then that” structure is not made very clear in the passage either. Though Barb did a very good and crucial job in highlighting it.
“If this, Then that” requires a “Yes / No” or “Go / No-Go” answer which is binary and therefore “Black and White”. Using just one of these blocks can lead to an overly simplistic answer.
However, you can get to a very good answer to a very nuanced problem this way but only after correctly employing a long string of these “If this, Then that” building blocks. This is called a “logic tree”. Too often, though, it is done incorrectly or insufficiently.
Imagine (so what follows is an abstraction!) this computer logic building block was an actual kiln-fired red brick. The brick is very simple in itself but you can build a very complicated cathedral using lots of them.
Now imagine someone takes half a dozen of these bricks, arranges them in a particular fashion and then claims the result is a cathedral. If this person believes what he is saying, he is deluded and we see this repeatedly with professionals (priests, pastors, lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc.). It is best understood as the “Dunning-Kruger Effect”. Hubris has this effect.
If this person knows what he is saying is wrong, then he is a controller, at least, if not a psychopath of one variety or another. We see this manipulation repeatedly also with professionals (priests, pastors, lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc.). It is best understood as “Power corrupts”. Evil has this effect.
So, it’s the abstract nature of the argument that is not recognised or understood for all sorts of reasons. Then on top of this we have the ‘usual suspects’, Hubris and Evil, taking advantage of the confusion and the misunderstanding.
What to do about it? I don’t know except to do what you are doing, Barb – continue to point out the conditional and abstract nature (and what that means) of passages like these to those that will genuinely consider your words. And not to expect Hubris and Evil to give ground to your arguments because of their inherent conflict of interest.
Thank you so much, James. That was really helpful — and encouraging. :)
Hi, Barb,
You are sweet to reply and ask for feedback. Funny that, I didn’t think I was disagreeing with your stance. I do agree with your positioning. Perhaps I just didn’t dive into explaining myself enough.
I mentioned the Jesus / Moses / divorce passages only to underscore the fact that Jesus / Moses are aware that MEN’s hearts grow hard to their wives and they had compassion for those women! Whereas, our church leaders who insist on heaping the ill-fitting “God hates divorce” onto the wife’s shoulders, do not have any compassion! They just wish to burden her further. A husband who has a hardened heart, whether he divorces her or not, is heaping treachery upon his bride. Even though Jesus and Moses offer this last resort “prescription”, it is for HER benefit, not theirs. To them he is DESCRIPTIVE of the hardness. I think we agree here. If I am wrong, please advise. I did go to the link you provided and read it, thank you!
I hope this helps. I wouldn’t want to cause despair of not getting through. You’re work is amazing and I am grateful that you made it your life’s work. Press on!
James, thank you for your replies as well.
God bless you both!
Hi, Anewnon. You said:
I think this is where we have a different understanding. I believe that in Deut 24:1-4, Moses was not offering divorce as a last resort prescription for men’s hardness of heart. I think Moses was spelling out the conditions in which a man must NOT remarry a woman he had previously divorced. That passage in Deuteronomy does not explicitly permit or allow or condone divorce. It DIS-allows remarriage under certain circumstances.
In my view, Jesus did not agree with the Pharisees’ claim that Deut 24 was about Moses permitting men to divorce their wives. Jesus told the Pharisees that Moses made the law in Deut 24:4 because men were hardheartedly divorcing their wives and later on remarrying those same wives.
Think of men doing wife swapping. One man dumps his wife, another man marries her, the second man dumps her, and the first man marries her again. It’s that kind of thing which Moses forbade in Deut 24. I have heard that in Islam, that kind of male conduct is condoned and authorised by Imams. Ugh!
Barb mentioned hearing that in Islam there is temporary marriages, where the men pay to use women, and girls, for a weekend or even just a night, and then divorce them after using them. The imams get paid a tidy sum, the marriage vows can be done quickly over the phone, and then the man gets to use and abuse his latest girl or woman for the weekend and then be divorced upon the set time period lapsing or otherwise he just pays the imam to quickly write him a divorce decree.
The imam makes a tidy sum. The john gets to use a girl or woman as a prostitute, without paying her anything, so thieving her, too. And when he is done exploiting and using her, he can quickly and easily get a written divorce as readily as he got ‘married’ for the weekend. It’s done in minutes. And the girl or woman gets afforded no payment as a prostitute would, nor does she have any marital rights, and then she when she is discarded, she is considered unmarriageable / damaged goods and it is almost certain nobody will marry her in a more traditional sense.
I think the men can be more traditionally married and then divorce their traditional wife for the weekend while temporarily marrying a girl or woman he is preying on and exploiting, then divorce the temporary ‘wife’ and remarry the traditional wife, once the weekend is up.
Some men don’t marry in a traditional sense and just go from one temporary marriage to another, using and abusing. It’s sick.
I watched a documentary on this temporary marriage system and how men would use it to obtain girls in their pre-teens, and temporarily use them via ‘marriage’ for a night and then divorce them in the morning and go on their way. The imams were pimps, with girls filling their stable. Pedophilia and prostitution — which is sexual slavery — and pimping all wrapped up in the imam’s “services”. It was revolting.
Thanks, Poster. Could you email me a link to that documentary? barbara@notunderbondage.com
Anewanon makes such a good point —
This issue comes up all the time. These OT Scriptures were written by men (inspired or not) for men (honourable or not) in a culture that heavily discounted the importance or value of women. Women were discounted to the point that they weren’t deemed worthy of addressing directly.
Jesus took issue with this false thinking with His whole ministry yet so many teachers ‘want to go back to the way it was’.