The Clear and Simple Truth on Divorce and Remarriage, Part One
by Robert Waters
Introduction
I. Divorce and remarriage is seen by many as one of the most challenging Bible subjects, if not THE most difficult.
B. Why is this subject so difficult – why is there not a more unanimous understanding?
1. God is not the author of confusion, and his word is perfect:
a. 1 Co 14:33 - For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all
churches of the saints.
b. Ps 19:7 - The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the
LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
2. Thus, it must be due to error and misunderstanding on man’s part.
3. God’s word is perfect and when we understand it there will be no doubts.
II. The text: Mark 10:11 (one of them)
Mark 10:11 - "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her."
A. What is often concluded from Jesus’ teachings (usually Matt 19:9) is that a person who
divorces his spouse and marries another commits adultery because they are still
married to the previous spouse.
1. Thus, they conclude and teach that one who is divorced must remain celibate.
2. However, there is the exception clause to contend with, which is found in
Matt 19:9: "except for fornication," and people generally have concluded that
this means if one of the parties has committed adultery he can remarry, but many
contend that only if they initiate the divorce because of the adultery can they remarry.
a. Thus, if your spouse initiates the divorce against you, even though you have
been faithful, you cannot (according to them) marry another.
b. But I contend, and stand ready to debate, that this was basically the opposite of what
Jesus taught.
B. There are those who are determined to obey what they think Jesus taught without considering
the possibility that they could be wrong or showing any signs of caring about the consequences.
1. But there are those who have considered the consequences of the “traditional”
position and have found them to be unacceptable, and therefore continue their
search for the truth.
a. By unacceptable I'm talking about facts like:
1) Their teaching can only be true if Jesus contradicted the Law under which he lived, which
allowed divorce.
i) This conclusion has Jesus sinning by failing in His duty as a prophet of God responsible to
follow and teach the Law, which included the divorce law.
2) …it does not allow harmony of the scriptures since Paul
commanded…to let the unmarried marry (1Cor7:8,9) and stated the
reason to “let them marry,” which is to “avoid fornication” (1 Cor7:2)
and stated that the “loosed” do not sin if they marry (Vs 27, 28)
3) Their teaching that forbids people to marry was condemned by Paul as being
“doctrines of devils” 1 Tim 4:1-4.
4) It has God having made a law that requires punishing someone when they
did nothing to deserve it – of for the sin another committed.
b. One must decide if the position he holds on divorce and remarriage has
“consequences” that he can or cannot accept, and make any necessary changes
in his thinking, teaching and practice.
C. Of course, this subject is difficult to study because of our own prejudices.
1. Many have their minds made up and refuse to even consider anything that
is contrary to what they were taught, and which might require a change.
a. Their thinking regarding what Matt 19:9 says (which has become tradition)
has become their authority, therefore, anything that conflicts with their
preconceived ideas cannot possibly be correct and is automatically rejected.
2. The truth on divorce and remarriage can be simplified by first getting on the right
track, as I shall endeavor to show you.
Body
I. Let us now see how that Jesus’ teachings is misunderstood.
A. Jesus said: Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. (Mark 10:11)
B. Before anyone should draw any conclusions that requires drastic action, like breaking
up a marriage or imposing celibacy (and using Jesus’ teachings to support it) he
needs to know for sure what Jesus said.
1. The common or “traditional” view of what He said is that one who divorces his
spouse and marries another, commits adultery unless the one who initiated the
divorce did it because of adultery.
a. Thus, they claim that any divorced person who is now married, according to
Jesus is not really married “in God’s eyes,” but the conclusion is an assumption
based upon what they think He meant.
b. Jesus did not say that a “divorced” person commit adultery if he/she marries
regardless of the reason for the divorce.
2. Here is a paraphrase of what Jesus said: “If you ‘put away’ your wife and marry
another, unless it be for fornication, you commit adultery and anyone who marries
the one who was put away commits adultery.” (Matt 19:9).
a. “Put away” and “divorce” are NOT THE SAME THING.
b. “Put away” means “send out of the house” and results in separation – not
in a legal divorce, which makes clear why the woman would commit adultery
if she marries
c. Don’t be confused about the so-called “exception clause” – this was simply
a situation like where the woman the man married was kin and the marriage
was illegal (incest). (Two New Testament examples: 1) 1 Cor. 5; 2) Matt. 14:4.
II. What evidence is there that “put away” just means what it says and does not
mean divorce?
A. First, there is a GK word for divorce and it is not the one that is translated put away in
Matt 19:9.
1. Greek words:
a. APOLUO – “Put away”
b. APOSTASION - “Divorce”
2. It is argued that apoluo and apostasion are used interchangeably.
a. I have observed that some preachers have been deliberately saying “put away”
when they mean divorce, at least in their writings.
b. But it is a misuse of the Greek and the English.
3. Interlinear: Mt 5:32 (KJV text)
But [de] I [ego] say [lego] unto you [humin], That [hoti] whosoever [hos]
[an] shall put away [apoluo] his [autos] wife [gune], saving [parektos] for
the cause [logos] of fornication [porneia], causeth [poieo] her [autos] to
commit adultery [moichao] and [kai] whosoever [hos] [ean] shall marry
[gameo] her that is divorced [apoluo] committeth adultery [moichao]
B. Authorities on APOLUO:
1. Wuest (word studies)
Mark 10:11 – "The words 'to put away' are apoluo, literally, 'to release.'
When used in connection with divorce, it means 'to repudiate.'" Wuest Translation:
And having come to Him, Pharisees kept on asking Him whether it is lawful for a man
to repudiate a wife, putting Him to the test. Matt. 5:32: Whoever marries her who
has been dismissed commits adultery.
2. Thayer says apoluo means, “to dismiss from the house, to repudiate...”
(Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pg. 66). Later
in the definition "divorce" is noted, but that definition is apparently
included because some think the context of Matt. 1:19 indicates that
Joseph was "of a mind to" divorce his spouse. But since they were not married
there is no justification for including divorce in the meaning in this text.
3. Bagster’s Analytical Lexicon:
“Apoluo. Put away: To let go; to let loose; to send away.”
This definition was taken from an article published in Truth Magazine.
Some have noted that their version of Bagster's work includes divorce.
4. George Lamsa's Translation of the New Testament
“Matthew 5:31 It has been said that whoever divorces his wife, must give her
the divorce papers. 32 But I say to you, that whoever divorces his wife, except
for fornication, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman
who is separated but not divorced, commits adultery.”
Mr. Lamsa is not completely consistent in his thinking because he translated
apoluo as divorce twice in this verse and only once translated it correctly as
separated. However, Lamsa makes it quite clear that the meaning, according to
the context, is that marrying a woman that has been separated from her husband
but has not received the "bill of divorcement" is what results in adultery.
Evidently, because putting away has been considered "divorce" for so long (and
may have even been so misused in Jesus' day), many scholars continue to refer to
the "putting away" as divorce, even though a legal and scriptural divorce requires
a "bill of divorcement" according to the law God inspired Moses to write (Deut. 24:1-4),
which virtually all civil authorities today respect and follow.
B. Authorities on the meaning of the English words "PUT AWAY":
Some English dictionaries do not even include divorce as a definition of “put away”
including:
a. Wordnet Dictionary:
“Put Away”
Definition:
1. [v] turn away from and put aside, perhaps temporarily; “She turned away from her
painting”
2. [v] eat up; usually refers to a considerable quantity of food; “My son tucked in a
whole pizza”
3. [v] kill gently, as with an injection, as of pet animals
4. [v] place in a place where something cannot be removed or someone cannot
escape; “The parents locked her daughter up for the weekend”; “She locked her
jewels in the safe”
5. [v] throw or cast away; “Put away your worries”
6. [v] lock up or confine, in or as in a jail; “The suspects were imprisoned without
trial”; “the murderer was incarcerated for the rest of his life”
Synonyms include: cast aside, cast away, cast out, discard, dispose, throw away,
throw out
b. The Collins English Dictionary © 2000 HarperCollins Publishers:
“Put Away”
verb [transitive, adverb(ial)]
1. to return (something) to the correct or proper place example: he put away his books
2. to save example: to put away money for the future
3. to lock up in a prison, mental institution, etc.
example: they put him away for twenty years
4. to eat or drink, esp. in large amounts
5. to put to death, because of old age or illness
example: the dog had to be put away
c. There was NO MENTION of divorce anywhere in the definition of “put away”.
1) Why is this significant?
2) Because apoluo is properly translated, “put away” and “put away”, in our
language does not mean divorce.
3) In the O.T. there were two parts to a divorce, and it is pretty much the same today.
a) You file for divorce, and when the papers are completed you present them
to your spouse.
b) Then you put her away or send her out of the house. (Of course, in our
day the woman usually gets the house and the man leaves.)
D. Authorities on the meaning of Divorce:
“Apostasion”, properly translated “divorce” or “divorcement”. [Grk. 647] apostasion
(ap-os-tas’-ee-on) “neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of 868; properly,
something separative, i.e. (specially) divorce:--(writing of) divorcement” (Strong's).
Smith’s Bible Dictionary defines divorce as: “A legal dissolution of the marriage relation.”
E. What about the fact that some versions of the N.T. translate apoluo as divorce?
1. It is true that several translations have translated apoluo as divorce in Matt 5:32 etc.
a. However, as far as I have been able to find out, the KJV was the first to translate
apoluo as divorce and it was certainly inconsistent in so doing.
1) Of the 11 times Jesus used the word apoluo the KJV rendered it “put away”
every time except in one case – Matt. 5:32, and there is no apparent legitimate
reason for the inconsistency.
b. Previous to the KJV was the Wyclilff version:
Mark 10:11 - “Whosoever putteth awaye his wyfe and maryeth another, breaketh
wedlock to herward. And if a woman forsake her husband and be maryed to
another, she committeth advoutry also.”
c. A margin note in The Geneva Bible translated from the Textus Receptus in
1599 (years before the KJV) concerning the term put away said, “that is, was not
lawfully divorced.” (see: http://www.genevabible.org/files/DailyScripture/Luke16Footnotes.htm
1) Why is this worthy of note? It gives support to the idea that Jesus was talking
about men merely putting away their wives and NOT divorcing them lawfully.
d. Greek/English Interlinear (tr){BUT I} legw [3004] (5719) {SAY} umin [5213] {TO
YOU} oti [3754] {THAT} oV [3739] an [302] {WHOEVER} apolush [630] (5661)
thn [3588] {SHALL PUT AWAY} gunaika [1135] autou [846] {HIS WIFE,} parektoV
[3924] {EXCEPT} logou [3056] {ON ACCOUNT} porneiaV [4202] {OF
FORNICATION,} poiei [4160] (5719) {CAUSES} authn [846] {HER} moicasqai
[3429] (5738) {TO COMMIT ADULTERY;} kai [2532] {AND} oV [3739] ean
[1437] {WHOEVER} apolelumenhn [630] (5772) {HER WHO HAS BEEN PUT
AWAY} gamhsh [1060] (5661) {SHALL MARRY,} moicatai [3429] (5736)
{COMMITS ADULTERY.}
e. The American Standard Version is widely respected as being the most literal and accurate version.
a. It consistently renders apoluo as “put away” in the passages relative to our
study, and never does it render it as divorce.
b. Had the ASV scholars understood apoluo to mean divorce they would have so
translated it.
2. What appears to have happened is that the KJV erred by translating apoluo as
divorce in one instance, probably due to Papal influence.
a. By the time many of the newer versions came along many scholars were indoctrinated in the idea that
Jesus meant divorce when he was talking about merely "putting away," and therefore their biases were
reflected in their writings and translations.
b. Considering that the KJV has been so respected and widely used there is no wonder
that many were influenced by it.
See https://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-matthew-5-32.htm
A list of New Testament Translations that do not translate apoluo as divorce.
III. How is it possible that disciples came to think that “put away” means divorce?
A. First, in O.T. times some Jews were apparently simply putting away their wives or sending them away and marrying another.
1. Originally, there was no law authorizing divorce, but due to the hardness of heart of the
men, who were sending away their wives and marrying another, the law was given.
2. Their evil practice resulted in the women being put out on their own without a means of
supporting themselves.
a. They could not marry another without being charged with committing adultery.
b. Therefore, God COMMANDED the “bill of divorcement” to be given.
Deut. 24:1 (ASV) - 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 unseemly thing in her, that he
shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
1) From the reading it seems evident that providing the “bill of divorcement”
was a command.
2) Jesus’ question (Mark 10:3) confirms that it was a command: “What did Moses
command you?”
3) Now, let it be understood that this was no command, or even license, for treachery
against one’s spouse, because this is the very thing God “hateth” (Mal 2:16) - 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.
4) Nevertheless, in the case where men were determined to deal treacherously
with their spouse, by merely putting her away, that He commands the actual
divorce be given seems apparent.
3. Let us take a close look at Mark 10:2-5:
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his
wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command
you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you
this precept.
a. First, the Pharisees asked if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife.
1) Jesus responded by asking them what Moses commanded.
2) They replied that Moses allowed them to write a “bill of divorce” and to “put away”.
3) But Jesus responded that it was a “precept” or command, and that the giving of it was because of their hardness of heart.
b. Observations:
1) If put away means the same as divorce or is used interchangeable, then God’s word is redundant and makes no sense.
2) Such thinking has the conversant saying: (vs 4): Moses suffered you to divorce your wives and to divorce them.
continued....
click here to continue with part II
Return to Total Health