|
I have long advocated (and debated) that “apoluo” (often translated “put away”) is errantly translated “divorce” in most of the newer versions of the Bible. This changes the meaning of the word so that a perfectly sensible teaching suddenly makes NO sense and actually results in many believing that Jesus taught contrary to the Law that allowed the divorced to marry. This teaching has many serious consequences and benefits only the devil. The Hebrew writer speaks of the new covenant as a “better covenant” (Heb. 8:6), yet traditional MDR teachers have Jesus advocating a change in the divorce law that makes matters much worse.
The arguments supporting the claim that apoluo means divorce are few and are not substantial. First, the Romans, at the time of Jesus, considered mere separation and divorce to be the same thing. Of course, they had no understanding of God’s definition of divorce found in Deuteronomy 24—they did not even believe in God. Second, scholars give “divorce” as one definition of apoluo (way down the list). But this is reasonable since it was “used of divorce,” though incorrectly. Of course, the first definition given is to “send away, put away, repudiate” and therefore CANNOT be “divorce,” as God defined it, because it lacks a KEY ingredient—the “bill of divorcement.” Third, it is argued that Moses taught that the man who divorced his wife had to do so for the right reason—otherwise it was not a divorce “in God’s eyes.” It is asserted that the man and woman are “still married” and that Jesus said either would commit adultery by marrying someone else. Those who teach this doctrine then promote the idea that Jesus, in teaching that a divorce has to be “for fornication,” was teaching the same thing as Moses; this is an attempt to get around the problem inherent in their teaching, which is that Jesus could not have taught contrary to the Law.
Regarding number three, above, it seems evident that the Jewish men of Moses' day made the determination to divorce or not, and that a man who divorced his wife was never questioned regarding the “reason.” Nevertheless, it is obvious that the woman who received the certificate was free to “go and be another man’s wife” regardless of the “reason” for the divorce. There is something in the text that makes it abundantly clear that “some uncleanness” (the so-called “reason”) was never meant to be a “reason” or requirement before the divorce was considered legitimate. Let’s take a quick look at a contextual argument:
(Deu 24:3) "And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house...Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife."
If "some uncleanness" is a required "reason" for a divorce, then the SECOND husband is ALSO given a "reason." He must "hate her." Thus, IF Jesus is teaching the “same thing” then all that is required to ascertain a legitimate divorce is “hate.” Things are not adding up for the defenders of MDR tradition who break up legal marriages and impose celibacy.
Let’s now look at another contextual argument—one that proves that apoluo does not mean divorce. First, let us note where Jesus said (Mark 10:12) “And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” Here we have Jesus implying that a woman could “put away her husband.” But since the Law did not allow the woman to “divorce” her husband, and since Jesus could not have contradicted the Law, the only logical conclusion is that “put away” CANNOT be the same as divorce, as GOD defined it. So, to what, then, was Jesus alluding? Clearly, it was the SAME THING that He had addressed in regard to the man. She could “repudiate” her husband and separate. Divorce, as God defined it, was never, and is not now, required to be for some “reason” before it is seen “in God’s eyes” as a divorce. Since apoluo (put away) cannot mean divorce, in this passage, on what basis can one conclude it means divorce in other passages?
If it is truly reasonable and logical to translate apoluo as divorce, then would not all versions have done so? Well, the fact is, MANY did not, and for good reason. Here is a link to an article that lists many of them: http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-matthew-5-32.htm
For a man to obtain a legal divorce, under the Law, he had to accomplish three tasks: 1) Write a bill of divorcement; 2) give it to his wife; and 3) send her out of his house. If all a man did was apoluo his wife [put away, or send her (shalach) out of his house] then he was still legally married to that woman.
If apoluo means divorce, as we understand the term, then its Hebrew equivalent must also mean divorce. The Hebrew equivalent of the Greek apoluo is shalach. Therefore, Deuteronomy 24:1 would have to be translated as follows: "When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and divorce her." Thus, those who insist that “send away” (put away) and divorce are the same thing, have Moses writing something ridiculous—a man divorcing his wife twice!
Once we understand what Jesus was really teaching in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, it is not hard to accept and practice. The word apoluo does not mean divorce but refers to sending away or casting aside. Unless a divorce decree is obtained, the man and woman are still married—both in the eyes of God and, at least in the United States, in the courts of men.
Since there is no justification for the idea that “put away” means divorce, the idea that Jesus taught contrary to the Law—requiring that a divorce be for fornication—is without foundation. It has always been true that divorce, as God defined it, ends a marriage. Preaching to the contrary is opposed to logic, reason, justice, and scripture, including the teaching of Paul in several very clear passages found in 1 Corinthians 7.
|
