|
That the word APOLUO means “put away” in English,
virtually no one denies. However, some seem determined to teach others
that “put away” means the entire divorce process as defined by Moses in
Deut. 24:1,3 and as we commonly understand it today. Their strategy in
defending tradition is to use the phrase “put away” virtually
everywhere one would normally use the word “divorce”. The apparent
thinking is that if the word is misused long enough the meaning will be
changed in the mind of people, and when “put away” is mentioned it will
automatically be understood that “divorce” is the context.
Look up the phrase “put away” in “Wordnet Dictionary”, “Collins English Dictionary”, and “Encarta English Dictionary”, and you
will find various meanings, but DIVORCE is NOT among them.
Regardless of the fact that “put away” does not mean
divorce, Don Martin, David Willis and others, are constantly, and
deliberately (in their writings) trying to FORCE the phrase “put away”
to mean “divorce”. Obviously, the word “divorce” would much better
portray what they mean. When they truly want to accurately communicate
what they mean they say “divorce”. For example, if one was a candidate
for baptism they would ask, “Have you been divorced”, rather than ask,
“Are you a ‘put away’ woman/man,” which is terminology they use in
their writings?
What these brethren are doing is no less deceptive than
the practice of some denominational preacher in his effort to teach his
doctrine on the mode for baptism. When he speaks of baptism, he SAYS
“sprinkle” in place of baptism, which means immersion. Why, because it
is important that people accept the words as being the same thing,
even though he knows they are two different words with different
meanings, as is the case with "put away" (from APOLUO) and "divorce"
(from APOSTASION). The idea is, if they say it enough people will just
accept that they are the same. It appears to be a deliberate and deceptive
effort to change the language.
Let us note some examples of what I am talking about:
Truth:
Paul said, “ I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and
Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.”
Perversion:
Paul said he was thankful that he sprinkled none except Crispus and
Gaius, lest any should say he had sprinkled in his own name.
Truth:
In a legal/scriptural divorce, the one who was divorced received a
certificate of divorcement and is no longer married to the man who
divorced her.
Perversion (and absurdity):
In a legal/scriptural “put away”, the person who was put away is still
married to the person who “put her away”.
There is something very interesting in the above noted
“perversion”. Since “put away” does not mean “divorce”, the person “put
away” IS INDEED STILL MARRIED to the person who “put her away”. Thus,
in their efforts to mislead, by misusing terms, they have gotten
confused; and with their on misuse of terminology, they have defeated
their own position, which is the idea that in Jesus' statement that a
"put away" person commits adultery when they marry, he was MEANING
DIVORCE.
Those who deliberately use “put away” in place of
divorce, refuse to consider the fact that one can be “put away” and
never received a certificate of divorce, which would only have amounted
to a separation.
Below is a link to an article by Mike Willis that fully
explains the reason for the command found in Deut. 24:1-4. Below that
is a link that proves that the practice that resulted in the command to
provide the “bill of divorcement” is still going on in Israel today:
Mike Willis' Exegesis of Deut 24:1
Jewish Women in Chains
|
