Apoluo: A discussion with Joshua Papas on the meaning of Apoluo

Hello Joshua,
I appreciate your candor, as well as your thoughtful and brotherly response.

rw: First, what evidence do you seek? I can't go back in time and see to it that those who become "scholars" are not of Catholic influence, and I can't change what they have written. Neither can I change the new versions that translate apoluo as divorce. I can't change the fact that people misuse language, and mean something they do not say. It is difficult to prove something to people when the contrary has been accepted by many. Nevertheless, I think that by use of the process of elimination, reason and logic it can be proven that what Jesus condemned was the sending of a wife out of the house rather than divorcing according to the Law.

rw: I do not contest the idea that apoluo had become a word synonymous with divorce in the first century in some circles. What I contest is the idea that Jesus misused the language and contradicted the Law. Look with me at the text please.

Mr 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

rw: First, the Pharisees asked about putting away. They wanted Jesus to say whether or not it was lawful to put away a wife. What a difficult question for Jesus, they no doubt thought! The answer that many would have Him giving is "no it is not lawful,” but obviously it was lawful to divorce and that answer would have resulted in His being charged with contradicting Moses and it would have been a charge that would have been used at His trial. Jesus certainly would not have answered in the negative because in some cases divorce was commanded (see verse 3). What case would that be? Well, it was in the very case that they were asking about – where the man merely "put away" the wife. Moses had said to write a bill of divorcement, put it into her hand and then send her away (Deut. 24:1-4). Jesus taught them (and us) the truth by asking a question: "What did Moses command you?" They sought to entrap Jesus but He was too smart for them and they fell right into His trap. They replied that Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement AND to put her away. Thus, Jesus helped them see, by their own words, the true meaning of divorce. And then we see Jesus dealing with their original question. He said the man commits adultery against her (verse 10). Now how can that be? The Pharisees had just admitted that Moses allowed DIVORCE. The statement was made in response to Jesus' question. They said what He wanted them to say. So, divorce (as defined by Moses) was not what resulted in the man’s committing adultery against his wife. What then was it? Well, it had to be the thing that was first brought up – putting away. And isn't that what Jesus said resulted in adultery being committed?

Even today we can fail to communicate by not being clear in what we say. One could say to his wife, "I'm going to put you away," but how is she to understand that? He could mean several things: 1) he could have meant that he was going to divorce her; 2) he could have meant that he was going to have her incarcerated or institutionalized; 3) he could have been a cannibal and meant that he was going to eat her; 4) he could have meant that he was going to kill her and put her in the ground; or 5) as is still the practice of Jewish men today, he could have meant that he was going to send her out of the house and onto the street to be on her own. That would have been a treacherous act -- adultery -- because he would have violated the marriage contract and put her into a position where she could not honor her marriage contract nor marry another.

rw: It is good that you see the conundrum the traditional view has to deal with. However, you seem to have an "answer" for it, which I will deal with below.

rw: Brother, Jesus made statements of fact that applied to the people He spoke to. It was not merely a "spiritual intent" – or something that was to come into effect after the cross. Why would he make a direct statement, using words needed to convict Him of breaking the Law, to those who sought to bring Him before the courts as a lawbreaker – and even before the words were true?

Of course, the response from the Pharisees indicates they understood Jesus to be talking straight to them and that He did not forbid divorced persons to marry. Had He indeed forbidden divorce Jesus would have been defeated by evil men. That did not happen! Jesus always defeated his enemies.

rw: Joshua, think about what you said. You said God never intended the Jews to divorce. Do you really believe that? It was God who inspired Moses to write Deut. 24:1-4, which is a command to divorce (see also Mark 10:3). Now, the Law did deal with the responsibility of men to be faithful to their wives – not to deal treacherously with them. Look with me at the text below:

Mal 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. 16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

First, note that the one that was dealt with treacherously (put away, see verse 15) was still "the wife of thy covenant." Such would not have been the case if there had been an actual divorce, according to Moses' Law. Also, the thing that "he hateth" (putting away) could not have been divorce because divorce ended the marriage. Remember, verse 14 states that the thing that was condemned does not result in the marriage being ended. Indeed, Jesus did not change the Law. But the traditional view that has Him saying divorced persons commit adultery if they marry, has Him doing just that. There is no way around it. The truth is, Jesus taught that men should be faithful to their wives. He did indeed point them to God's original intent. He said, "let not man put asunder." This has been falsely interpreted to mean that man cannot end a marriage unless it is for fornication. Again, that idea is untenable because it has Jesus contradicting the Law. Man cannot end a marriage his way. If one is to be truly ended it is to be done GOD'S way. When a man puts his wife away (apoluo - repudiate, release, dismiss, send away) he has not divorced her – he has not put asunder the marriage. That takes a "bill of divorcement" that shows her to be free to "go be another man's wife." This is God's way. Now, he prefers that men be faithful to their wives, but to protect the wife from treachery, God inspired Moses to deal with such a situation (Deut. 24:1-4).

rw: John did not flatly contradict the Law. Teaching baptism for the forgiveness of sins may have been something added, but this prophet did not flatly contradict the Law. Neither did Jesus on MDR. But he did IF He said divorced persons commit adultery. Moses said they don't. I'm confident that the only reasonable answer to this conundrum for the traditional view is that He did not say divorced persons commit adultery. That means the traditional view is wrong and should be rejected.

rw: Joseph was not called righteous for failing to follow Moses' command. He was righteous for the way he responded to the happenings of his betrothed. The Law indeed required stoning of one caught in adultery.

Le 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

But there was no evidence that Mary had committed adultery. She was not married yet and there was no charge that one who was married had been with her.

The Jews brought a woman to Jesus who had committed adultery (John 8:4,5). Jesus did not change the Law or circumvent it. He told his tempters to go on and stone her. He said “you who are without sin case the first stone.” They knew they were guilty of the same thing and walked away. Jesus forgave her. He did not contradict the Law. God did not contradict the Law or go against His paradigm by not stoning Israel. Israel never committed physical adultery. An allegory can be taken only so far. God's teaching by example was that of faithfulness to His wife, patience and forgiveness. The Law did not require a man to stone his own wife. That was something the Law required of the people.

Finally, I do say that my view is the only one that is in harmony with the Bible. I believe it is true and truth is all that will harmonize with truth. Paul's clear teachings regarding the unmarried to "let them marry" does not harmonize with the idea that divorced persons commit adultery when they marry. But there is no conflict if "put away" does not mean divorce.