IV. Below are versions that are consistent in NOT translating apoluo as divorce in Mat 5:32:
(ASV) but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the
cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her
when she is PUT AWAY committeth adultery.
(Bible in Basic English) But I say to you that everyone who puts away his wife
for any other cause but the loss of her virtue, makes her false to her husband;
and whoever takes her as his wife after she is PUT AWAY, is no true husband
to her.
(Darby) But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for
cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery, and whosoever marries one
that is PUT AWAY commits adultery.
(DRB) But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the
cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her
that is PUT AWAY, committeth adultery.(KJ3 Literal Translation Bible) 32 But I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a
matter of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the one put away commits adultery.
(LITV) But I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a matter of
fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the one
PUT AWAY commits adultery.
(MKJV) But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause
of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is
PUT AWAY commits adultery.
(Worldwide English) But I tell you, no man may send away his wife unless she has
committed adultery. If he does send her away, he is making her commit adultery.
And if a man marries a woman who has been sent away from her husband, he
commits adultery.
(World English Bible) But I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for
the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her
when she is put away commits adultery.
(Wuest) Whoever marries her who has been dismissed commits adultery.
(WYC) But I say to you, that every man that leaveth his wife [that every man
that shall leave his wife], except (for) [the] cause of fornication, maketh her to do
lechery, and he that weddeth the forsaken wife, doeth adultery.
(Youngs Literal Translation) But I—I say to you, that whoever may PUT AWAY
his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and
whoever may marry her who hath been PUT AWAY doth commit adultery.
There is no stronger evidence of a proper translation of a word than what is
rendered by respected translators. The ASV is the most respected for accuracy
and reliability. Also, a few of the other versions noted above are highly respected
and quoted from often. It is primarily the new versions, which are known for
unfaithfulness to the original language, that in some instances render apoluo as
divorce in at least some passages.
V. Below are all the passages (as rendered by the KJV) where APOLUO is used in
connection with the PUTTING AWAY of WIVES, which was the problem Jesus
addressed :
Mt 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a
writing of divorcement;
Mt 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for
the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall
marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Mt 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is
it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Mt 19:8 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.
Mt 19:9 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.
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.
Mr 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry
another, committeth adultery against her.
Mr 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to
another, she committeth adultery.
Lu 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth
adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband
committeth adultery.
“Put her away”
Mt 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make
her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
Mt 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of
divorcement, and to put her away?
Mr 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to
put her away.
VI. Now let us look at teachings that support the idea that “put away” was not equal to divorce but resulted only in a separation.
A.
Ezr 10:11 Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your
fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the
land, and from the strange wives.
1. The word translated “separate” is:
[Heb. 914] badal(baw-dal')
a primitive root; to divide (in variation senses literally or figuratively, separate,
distinguish, differ, select, etc.):-- (make, put) difference, divide (asunder), (make)
separate (self, -ation), sever (out), X utterly. (Strong's)
2. There was no command to divorce those women, as God defined divorce, but why?
a. They were not legal marriages.
b. The relationships were not pleasing to God and simply needed to be ended by permanent separation.
B. What is significant about the observation that "put away", as used by Jesus, amounts to separation?
1. The "exception clause", found in Matt 19:9 is made to be the core of the
teaching that so divides brethren on the divorce and remarriage issue.
a. It is asserted that one who is divorced cannot marry unless he did the
divorcing and did it because the spouse committed fornication.
b. That is not what the passage says.
2. Jesus said if one PUTS AWAY his wife and marries another he commits
adultery, unless the wife was put away BECAUSE OF FORNICATION.
a. This does not mean that the spouse committed fornication, which either
broke the marriage bond or allowed the "innocent" one to so do.
b. It simply had reference to the RELATIONSHIP - it was not a legal marriage.
1) If a man found that he had married someone who was already
married, or who was close kin (incest), he would not need to do anything
but "put away", which amounted to separation.
2) (New Jerusalem) But I say this to you, everyone who divorces his wife,
except for the case of an illicit marriage, makes her an adulteress; and
anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Mt 5:32).
[The translators of the above version failed to properly translate apoluo,
but properly translated or paraphrased the "exception clause" as "except
for the case of an illicit marriage."]
3. The only instances in the N.T. where action was required in a case involving a
marriage was where the marriage was not legal according to the Law, i.e., was an "illicit marriage".
a. One was Herod's marriage to his brother's wife (Mark 6:18; Lev 20:21)
b. The second was the man who had his father's wife (1Cor. 5. See Clark).
4. Illustrations:
a. Consider that some men (or women) just put their spouse out of the
house with the intention of being permanently separated, and do not bother
with a divorce.
1) It could be they did it because they had no intention of marrying another
because of indifference, or for various other reasons.
2) Also, some actually “divorce” but do not “put away” and the motive
may be to avoid paying taxes.
b. John and Shay marry. John finds another woman. John “puts away” Shay.
He says to her, “Take your stuff and get out of the house. You are
free from me. I’m marring another woman.”
1) What happens when he does marry this other woman? In Jesus day, men
could have more than one wife, so marrying another would not have been adultery for the man.
Jesus explained this in Mark 10:11."He committeth adultery against her."
2) What would be the situation for the woman? She would be on her
own and could not marry according to Law and Scripture. Why? It
would be because she would commit adultery if she did, since she
was still legally married. What is her solution to the problem? Get a
legal and proper divorce, if possible. Under Jewish Law, it was virtually impossible.
C. The above is clearly the type of scenario that was addressed by Moses as found in
Deut 24:1-4, which is the very passage the Pharisees alluded to in their effort to
entrap Jesus.
1. Mike Willis, an ultra conservative preacher and long time editor of Truth
Magazine (now Guardian of Truth), gave the following exegesis of Deut 24:1-4:
“A reading of this passage demonstrates that Moses was trying to legislate
in such a way as to aid the woman because of the manner in which man
was abusing her. According to what I can understand was happening in
the days of Moses, a man would put away his wife without any concern for
her future. She would not be free to go out and marry another man and
yet she could not live with her husband. This left her in destitute
circumstances quite frequently. Hence, what Moses was trying to legislate
was something that would aid women who had been put away by their
husbands.”
“The Mosaical legislation said that if a man was going to put away his
wife, he had to give her a bill of divorcement that showed that she was
free from him and had the opportunity to remarry. Hence, it was
designed to protect the women from the harsh treatment husbands were
giving to them. Mike Willis Dayton, Ohio Truth Magazine XXIV: 14,
pp. 227-230 April 3, 1980.
D.
Isa 50:1 – “Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother’s
divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom
I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for
your transgressions is your mother put away.”
1. This passage is very important because it emphasizes the importance
of the “bill of divorcement” and teaches us that until there is an actual
legal divorce (with the papers) there is still hope for reconciliation. It also
clearly illustrates that “put away” does not mean “divorce”.
2. Evidently God did not deal treacherously with Israel by simply putting
her away and leaving it at that.
a. There was a “separation” but no divorce at this point, as was evidently
the case in the following passage:
Mal 2:14, 15 “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. 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.”
b. In the above passage is the illusion to the abuse of a wife (treachery)
probably by having been "put away", and the passage states
that the covenant is yet intact.
1) Such would be the case because "put away" is not divorce,
and a marriage covenant is not ended by merely "putting away".
2) Marriages were ended only by writing a bill of divorcement, putting
it into her hand and then "putting away" or "sending her out of
the house" (Deut. 24:1-4).
3. The word translated “divorcement” (in Isa 50:1) is “kariythuwth,” which
STRONG defines as: “divorce, dismissal, divorcement”.
JFB – “HORSLEY best explains (as the antithesis between ‘I’ and
‘yourselves’ shows, though LOWTH translates, ‘Ye are sold’) I have
never given your mother a regular bill of divorcement; I have merely ‘put
her away’ for a time, and can, therefore, by right as her husband still take
her back on her submission; I have not made you, the children, over to
any ‘creditor’ to satisfy a debt; I therefore still have the right of a father
over you, and can take you back on repentance, though as rebellious
children you have sold yourselves to sin and its penalty (1Ki 21:25 ).”
The explanation (above) of the text is consistent with Deut 24:1-4.
“Put away” did not mean “divorce”. It meant or was equal to separation.
VII. What is Significant about Deut 24:1-4?
A. The order of the command of Moses was: write the bill of divorce
and “send her away” (shalach).
1. That there are two separate commands involved in the divorce is evident.
2. The Hebrew word, "Shalach" is translated "send her away" and is
equivalent to the greek word APOLUO, which means "put away".
B. It is important to note that STRONG nowhere mentions divorce in
his definition of “shalach”, as found in the text.
1. This should not be surprising because in the passages where
“shalach” is used it is understood from the context to be
something less than a complete divorce, where papers were issued.
2. It is very significant that Jesus dealt with the very same matter in
His discourse with the Pharisees (Matt 19). Thus, it is prudent to
conclude that where Jesus used the word “apoluo” in his
response to the Pharisees, in reference to the Deut 24:1-4 scenario,
that it should NOT be translated “divorce”.
3. Furthermore, there is no reason for any “authority” to have
included “divorce” as part of the definition of “apoluo”, as used
in Matt 19:9.
a. In fact, there are various reasons apoluo should not be translated divorce.
1) It would result in redundancy.
2) There is another word (apostasion) in the same context
that is used to refer to divorce, and is universally
translated as divorce.
b. The Greek word “apostasion” is translated “divorcement”
and is found 3 times in the KJV - all are in the gospels
and legal divorce is the implication. [Mt5:31; Mt19:7; Mr10:4]
VIII. Words sometimes only partially communicate and leave room for speculation, theory and conjecture.
A. Example: I met an old friend a few years ago that I had not seen in over 20 years. I knew she had married a doctor but did not know anything about him. She said to me, “I had to get rid of him”. Now, “get rid of” could be interpreted in various ways. It could mean she divorced him, it could mean she just told him IT IS OVER – We are THROUGH, and moved out, or sent him out; or she could have killed him. If she had wanted to clearly communicate the idea that she had divorced her husband she could certainly have used the word “divorced”, or even said, “I gave him his walking papers”, but since she did not I cannot be absolutely certain what she meant. There is a remote possibility that the man she married was already married when he married her or that he was a first cousin, both of which would have made the marriage illegal. Thus, in such case she would not have needed to do anything more than “put him away”, which was to end the relationship by permanent separation. Was God not being clear when He inspired writers to use certain words that mean “put away”, “send away” etc.? Did He want us to conclude that they had, in every case, actually divorced their wife? Some may have incorrectly used the same native language to mean “divorce,” but that is not what God said. When God gave important legislation regarding divorce he made it clear. In both the O.T. (Deut 24:1-4) and the N.T. (Matt 19:7-9) there is the allusion to actual papers (“bill of divorce”) when divorce (noun) is under consideration. But of course when God said “he may not put her away all his days” (Deut. 22:29) common sense dictates that the command disallowed a divorce because “put away” was involved in “divorce”. It just makes sense that if you are told to not “put away” you are being told you cannot divorce, although they are not the same thing. Nevertheless, some preachers are deliberately using the words "put away", in their teachings when they mean "divorce". Why, because that is what they need it to mean. When they need to know about someone's "eligibility" do they ask, "Have you been put away?" Of course, they do not. They ask, "Have you been divorced?" If, in the above example, my friend had said, “I divorced him” or I gave him his “walking papers”, then I would have understood for certain that an actual divorce had taken place. As she worded it, all I knew for certain was that they were separated and did not have a good relationship.
IX. A Look at Various Old Testament Passages
(Ezra 10:19) “And they gave their promise that they would put away
(yatsa’ H3318) their wives; and being guilty, they presented a ram of the flock
as their trespass offering.” NKJV
It is worthy of note that in the text there was no indication that the priests did
anything other than “put away” or separate from their foreign wives according to the
will of God. They did not need to actually divorce them because these were women that
they should never have married – women who God had said they could not marry. Thus,
they were committing sin in living with these women, which is the same type of thing
as “fornication” (porneia), which includes “incest”, according to STRONG. The fact
that they did not formally divorce their wives is in perfect harmony with Jesus’
“exception” – “except for fornication”, i.e., the “putting away” and marrying another
would not result in adultery being committed.
(Jeremiah 3:1) “They say, ‘If a man put away (shalach H7971) his wife,
and she go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? shall
not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers;
yet return again to me,’ saith the LORD.”
In the above passage, the word “They” was doubtless a reference to the Jews who had
come to misunderstand and misuse Deut 24-1-4. (This will become evident when you
understand the message of the text.) In Deut 24 the husband was forbidden to take back
a wife to whom he had actually given a “bill of divorce” if she had married another.
He was not forbidden to take back a woman who he had “put away” or merely sent out of
the house, as we have seen from Isaiah 50:1, though it seems apparent from the text
(Jer 3:1) that such had become the thinking of the people. God said, Regardless of
this erroneous thinking, I will take you back. He was saying, we have been separated
and you have played the harlot, nevertheless, I will take you back.
Was God asserting that he would do something that was against the Law, and therefore
would mess up the paradigm he had given?
(Jeremiah 3:8 ) “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding
Israel committed adultery I had put her away (shalach H7971), and given her a bill
of divorce (keriythuwth H3748); yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went
and played the harlot also.”
After alluding to the fact that he had been previously dispatched to plead for
Israel’s return during the separation, Jeremiah stated that God had “given her
[Israel] a bill or certificate of divorce”, thus dissolving the marriage and relieving
God of any responsibility to Israel as his “chosen” or as his “wife” who He had
married (Jer3:14). In verse 14 we see where the Lord had told Jeremiah to
plead with his “back sliding” “wife” to return and he would take her back. If we
go back and consider verse 12 there should be no doubt that Jeremiah was
talking about what he had been told to say BEFORE the divorce had actually
been given.
Note how some would interpret Jer.3:8:
"And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed
adultery I had DIVORCED HER (put her away), and DIVORCED HER (given
her a bill of Divorce); yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went
and played the harlot also” (Jer 3:8).
In the above passage some emphatically argue that "put away" means divorce.
But if such is true then consider how ridiculous they make the passage read.
They have God saying: I DIVORCED HER AND I DIVORCED HER. Nevertheless,
the fact that God did two separate things (described with different words), to Israel
is positive proof that the sending away is not the divorce. It should be obvious that
"sending away" a spouse is not equal to divorcing her. One can put away and
not divorce and one can divorce and not put away. In either case, the requirement
of Deut. 24:1-3 are not met; therefore, the marriage remains intact.
(Ezekiel 44:22) “Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her
that is put away (garash H1644): but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel,
or a widow that had a priest before.”
The NKJV says, “driven out” instead of “put away”.
The command to the priests restricted them to marrying a virgin or a widow of
another priest. If the priests had obeyed the command, it would have assured
that the priests did not marry one who could possibly be still married to another.
The above passage may be an indication that there were misunderstandings
among the Jews regarding what was an acceptable divorce. Marrying a virgin
or the widow of another priest assured that the woman had no legal ties to another,
and when you consider what their responsibilities were, it is understandable that
God would require such of these men.
X. Some Observations Regarding Divorce in the Epistles
A. Have you ever noticed that in the KJV or ASV there is no instance
of an apostle’s words being translated as “divorce,” “divorced,”,
or “bill of divorcement” etc?
1. However, “loosed” (LUSIS, 1 Cor 7:27,28) refers to and applies
to those who have been divorced.)
2. Neither Jesus nor the apostles specifically and plainly addressed
the matter of divorce.
a. Nevertheless, in an effort to explain the apostles’ teachings
to conform to their idea of what they THINK Jesus taught,
many assert that “chorizo” (rendered as “depart”, 1 Cor. 7:11) means “divorce”.
1) It does not.
2) However, it is something that may be involved in the process of divorce.
b. Note STRONG’S definition below as copied in full from his work
used by SwordSearcher:
“from 5561; to place room between, i.e. part;
reflexively, to go away:--depart, put asunder,
separate.”
B. The words of the apostles constitute our authority to act lawfully, thus, the importance of the observation noted above, is evident.
The practice of requiring celibacy is something that is contrary to the very reason given for marriage (1Cor7:2).
Divorce is not specifically and clearly authorized in the New Testament, but because marriage is dissolvable (contrary to Catholic decree), if done legally, those who have been through an unfortunate marriage and divorce are not still bound to a previous relationship. Marriage and divorce is not a law of the church, therefore it is not regulated by the church.
When a divorce takes place, one or both parties may have been guilty of sin, but the sin(s) may be forgiven (1 Cor 6:11). The last thing a divorced person needs is to be placed in a position that makes his/her endeavor to live the Christian life even more difficult (1Cor7:2). That God does not require the divorced to be punished is true because there is no scriptural evidence of it. In reading the works of Josephus, I was unable to find where he made any mention of Jesus teaching, or being charged with teaching, that certain marriages must be dissolved or that certain people had no right to a marriage. According to Josephus’ understanding, the only restriction…was that they be “at the age fit for it”. This is consistent with the Apostle Paul’s teachings in 1 Cor 7:36: “But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.” The male is to be a “man” and the female must have “reached the flower of her age”. Any other restrictions placed upon people are man-made and not of the gospel of Christ (Gal 1:8,9).
In our language “put away” is NOT the same as divorce. We do not talk like that. Only men who need APOLUO (put away) to refer to or include the divorce itself, with all that is involved, to justify their teaching and practice, talk like that in their writings. As a child did you ever play the game where you say the opposite of what you mean? If you say something wrong long enough, you are going to get confused and the people that hear you are going to get confused. The translation from the ASV is correct and it means what it says.
Paul uses “depart” in 1 Cor 7:11, which is from “chorizo” and means separate. If she departs the logical result is that she is then SEPARATE from her husband, but still "bound" (married). See 1 Cor. 7:27, 28
Some are still clinging to the argument that only God joins and only God can unjoin. God “joins” people who marry, but when a couple marries, they had a part in that decision. God would not have joined them if they had not determined to marry. If this same couple determine to divorce it is their decision and there is no scripture that indicates that God does not recognize it. Thus, when we recognize that the divorced are indeed “loosed” it becomes apparent that the passages in the New Testament that teach that marriage is to be allowed, are to be applied to those who are divorced. To fail to obey is to be guilty of teaching “doctrines of devils” by “forbidding to marry” (1Tim. 4:1-3).