“Recognize the significance of the biblical language for proper interpretation…accustom yourself to the notion that there is a linguistic and cultural distance that separates us from the biblical text. While this distance should not be exaggererated, beware of reading into the Bible ideas that can be supported only from the English translation…Do place priority on the attested and contemporary usage of words…writers depend on the way language is actually used in their time.”
Kaiser, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning, 2007., p. 63-64
And such is the case with the word “DIVORCE”. It makes me angry that people who go out of their way to study the original languages (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic) of the scriptures, make so little effort to dig deeper and use their knowledge. Instead the same old “truths” get taught over and over again.
Here are the two different Hebrew words that both are translated with divorce:
“Legally divorce” vs. “Put Away”
First, there is the Greek word apostasion, meaning “to divorce”, specifically “to divorce in writing”. In other words, making it official for both the man and the woman!
“”Bill of Divorcement”: A formal written certificate confirming the legal end of a marriage contract (“GET”) releasing a woman from the ownership of her husband. This includes the amount agreed upon in advance, as written in the Ketubah, due to the woman in the event of a divorce. This is the closest term to modern English “divorce.” Hebrew: “”SEFER KERITUT”/Greek: “apostasion”” (1)
Second, the Greek word apoluo, which is more properly translated as ‘separation’, but is mostly translated as “to release or to put away”. But our translators use these words interchangeably and interpret both of them as divorce, when talking about the subject of divorce.
“Put Away”: The physical removalof someone. In the onctext of divorce, this would be of the spouse, usually the wife, and usually in a public way. Some English translations of the Bible incorrectly translate the term “put away” as “divorce”.
Hebrew: “SHALACH” OR “GARASH”/ Greek: “apoluo””(1). The wife then becomes an “Agunah”: A Jewish term for a wife being put away by her husband without a legal bill of divorce. This issue has sparked significant disputes in Jadaism for thousands of years while remaining largely unknown to most Christiams. It was a contentious topic that led to debates between Jesus and religious Jews.”
When these words are translated appropriately according to their original meaning, a different teaching emerges, especially combined with historical background.
In the ancient middle East, from before Moses till past Jesus’ time, men had the right to “put away their wives” for no or any reasons, without officially divorcing them. They could just say “I don’t like the way you cooked the sheep. Leave!” And that was it. She becomes an Agunah. A woman still legally married to her husband, but living separated from him with no rights or legal resources.
Now, the men, as in most cultures, had all the rights and could remarry again without getting officially divorced. The women, on the other hand, could not. And as women had no chance to work or support themselves other than being supported by their family or husband, a woman who had been “put away” (apoluo) had only one way to support herself: Prostitution. Or, as it was also called: By committing adultery. The newly remarried man, though, was not considered an adulterer. This was of hight advantage for the husband because if they only “put away” their wives, they did not have to return the dowry. The dowry, of course, was of ongoing advantage for the husband. It does not take a business person to figure this out.
For the woman who was only “put away” without given a proper divorce certificate (apostasion), there was no chance for remarriage. Only prostitution and adultery, unless her parents took her back without receiving back the dowry they had paid for her.
This is where the Old Testament shows one of the facets of its progressive views on Women’s Rights:
“…he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife… (Deut. 24:1-4). So obviously divorce was not forbidden in the Old Testament, but God gave a rule to protect women! Obviously not a rule that was studiously kept by the men.”
And the religious leaders knew that, especially the Pharisees when they came to Jesus with the question: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” (Matth.19) The Greek word used here is not apostasion (divorce), but apoluo, (to put away). So the Pharisees are really asking: “Is it lawful for a man to put away (stay married, but separate from her) his wife for any reason?”
Jesus answers them that it was not okay, that this was not okay with God at all. That in the beginning God’s plans for marriage, as for everything else, were perfect. So now they ask why then God commanded them to use a certificate of divorce. Here using the actual Greek word for an official divorce (apostasion). Jesus tells them because their hearts are hard, talking to the Pharisees, who followed the Rabbinical School of Hillel, which allowed the putting away of wives for any reasons at all, contrary to the more conservative Rabbinical Shamai school, which only advocated divorce or putting away for serious offences.
And Jesus calls the Pharisees hard-heartened for having the attitude of just putting their wives away for no real reason, leaving them no options but to committ adultery, in most cases.
And then comes Jesus ‘hammer’ blow for the male culture of his day, in Matth. 19: “Whoever puts away (Greek word: apoluo) his wife and marries another commits adultery.” In other words: “Not only are the wives still officially married to those men, since they have been only put away, but those men themselves are still officially married and committing adultery when they themselves remarry.
Wow, I bet that became one of the first points on the Pharisees’ list for doing away with Jesus. It was even too much to handle for his disciples. “If that’s how it is, than it is better not to marry”.
Yes, God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), but he also hates a host of other things (Provers 6: 6-19)
“There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers (sisters)”
Interesting, isn’t it? A divorcee and remarried person is shunned in the church, family, etc., but a liar, murderer, etc. is okay.
Yes, God hates divorce, and rightly so. But he did not forbid it under all and every circumstances:
“I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce alnd sent her away because of all her adulteries…” (Jer.3:8)
“Rebuke your mother, rebuke her, for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband.” (Hosea 2:20)
Here is an interesting point from the law of Moses: “If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he (1.) writes her a certificate of divorce, (2.) gives it to her and (3.) sends her from his house, (points 1 to 3 stating to legitimate steps for divorce)and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, (nothing about anyone committing adultery here) … the only forbidden thing mentioned is for the first husband to remarry her if she gets divorced again! That would be “detestable” to God.
“Consider this scenario: An Israelite husband, acting cruelly towards his wife, drives her into the arms of another man. In a punitive response, he withholds the bill of divorce, trapping her in a state of Agunah (anchored or chained) and preventing her from moving on legally. Overwhelmed by bitterness and frustration, she defies her marital bonds and chooses to marry her new love regardless. In this complete tapestry of actions and reactions, who is primarily responsible for the ensuing adultery? Such dilemmas have been central to Jewish theological discourse for more than three millennia, engaging even figures like Jesus, the Pharisees, and the teachers of the Law. Christianity often disregards this complex interation between personl autonomy, religious law, and moral ethics.” (1)
The Old and New Testament both have two primary words for “marital actions regarding divorce”(1). The English word divorce is used for both Hebrew words: BILL OF DIVORCEMENT and PUT AWAY: Bill of divorcement is the formal divorce with a piece of paper, releasing the wife oficially from the husband’s ownership. PUT AWAY means the physical removal of someone, usually the wife. The problem is that many translations use the two words interchangeably (NIV). But “put away” is not mean the modern day concept of divorce and should not be translated as such.
“It was a great advantage for a woman to have a certificate stating that her former husband relinquished any right to her, and allowed for her to marry any man. Without it, she would have great difficulty finding a second husband if she was abandoned or dismissed from her home by her first husband. “(1) A wife who was simply “put away” (send away for any reason without the bill of divorcement) became an “Agunah”. Still legally married to her husband, but no longer staying with him or being taken care of by him. And for women of that time that usually meant prostitution of death. This is still a modern day problem as well. For reference google the name “Agunah Tamar Epstein”.
Here are two translations of the same verse, Mark 10:11
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery (NIV)
Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery.
(KJV)
Here, as in other NT verses the the Greek word apoluo (put away) is used, but as in other instances is translated as divorce in some translations.
Church fathers, among them Calvin and Luther , often overlooked the Jewish context of Jesus’ teachings, which led to incorrect interpretations. And more than that, untold heartache for many. The judgement fundamentalist Christians put on divorcees, remarried or not, is often unbearable, condemning the concerned people to hell. Do we have the right to play God? Do we have the right to heap the untold hurt of our condemnation on people who already suffer unmentionable hurt and have done so for a long time? Divorce is never an easy step. Never. Neither is remarriage. So do we have the right to put ourselves in the place of God claiming this judgement without using the God-given gift of discernment? Do we ever ask ourselves if this is really what God is saying?
Thoughts and quotes are taken from the books by
Frank Friedmann: DIVORCE. COULD WE HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT JESUS SAID?
Eitan Bar: WHAT THE BIBLE ACTUALLY TEACHES ABOUT DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE
HeavenBoundEarth 