|
DIVORCEMENT
“Apostasion”, properly
translated “divorce” or "divorcement”. [Grk. 647] apostasion
(ap-os-tas'-ee-on)
PUT AWAY
Strongs Number 630. Greek “Apoluo”. The New
Testament Greek Lexicon:
1. to set free
2. to let go, dismiss, (to
detain no longer)
a. a petitioner to whom liberty to depart is given by a
decisive answer
b. to bid depart, send away
3. to let go free, release
a. a captive i.e. to loose his bonds and bid him depart, to
give him liberty to depart
b. to acquit one accused of a crime and set him at liberty
c. indulgently to grant a prisoner leave to depart
d. to release a debtor, i.e. not to press one's claim against
him, to remit his debt
4. used of divorce, to
dismiss from the house, to repudiate. The wife of a Greek or Roman may divorce
her husband.
5. to send one's self away,
to depart
Usage of the word “Apoluo”:KJV (146) - forgive, 47; forsake, 6; leave, 52; let, 8; let alone, 6;
misc, 13; suffer, 14
If we had not been led to
assume that “apoluo” (put away) means the same thing as “divorce”,
because of traditional teachings that go back even before the writing of the
KJV, the teachings of Jesus in Mt19:9 would much more likely have been
understood.
Jesus did not use any words
that were properly translated “divorce” or “bill of divorcement” except in the
few places where it was apparent that “papers,” to make it legal, is implied.
The Greek word “apostasion” is translated “divorcement” and found
3 times in the KJV - all are in the gospels and from Jesus, and legal divorce
is implied. [Mt5:31; Mt19:7; Mr10:4] In the KJV there is no instance of an
apostle’s words being translated as “divorce”, “divorced,” “bill of
divorcement” etc. Therefore, it should be very helpful for us to look closely at
what words they did use that have a bearing on our study.
SHALACH
SHALACH is the O.T.
corresponding word that is translated “put away” in the New Testament. Strong nowhere mentions divorce in his
definition. This should not be surprising because in the passages where the
word is used (namely Deut 24:1-4) it is understood from the context to be
something different from divorce that actually freed to woman to marry another.
Strong's Number: 7971 “Text:
a primitive root; to send away, for, or out (in a great variety of
applications): --X any wise, appoint, bring (on the way), cast (away, out),
conduct, X earnestly, forsake, give (up), grow long, lay, leave, let depart
(down, go, loose), push away, put (away, forth, in, out), reach forth, send
(away, forth, out), set, shoot (forth, out), sow, spread, stretch forth (out).”
BOUND
[Grk. 1210] deo (deh'-o) “a
primary verb; to bind (in various applications, literally or
figuratively):--bind, be in bonds, knit, tie, wind. See also 1163, 1189.”
1Cor7:27 – “Art thou
*bound* unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek
not a wife.”
Evidently one “bound” to a
wife was married, legally. The instruction given in the above text was to not
seek to be loosed, or unmarried which would be the same as divorced.
LOOSED
It seems to me that the word
“lusis”, translated “loosed” in Ro7:2 and 1Cor7:27 is the closest to anything
any of the apostles said that could be translated divorce (where a “bill” or papers is implied) in the English language.
[Grk. 3080] lusis (loo'-sis)
“from 3089; a loosening, i.e. (specially), divorce:--to be loose”
Rom 7:2 - “For the woman
which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth;
but if the husband be dead, she is *loosed* from the law of her husband.”
It is evident that the woman
whose husband died would no longer be under the law regarding him. What was the
law? Their marriage. (When two make a covenant it is essentially a law.
Christ’s law is called a covenant and there is also a marriage involved.) Does
this passage teach that she would still be under the law (the bond of marriage)
if her husband divorced her or if she divorced him? No. It certainly did not
say that and to draw such a conclusion would be to take it out of context.
1Cor7:27 - “Art thou bound
unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a
wife.”
The apostle Paul gave a
command (which was at least partly due to the “present distress”) to those
“loosed” from a wife to not seek a wife. I think most will agree that “loosed”
here meant there had been a legal divorce, resulting in freedom from
responsibility toward the previous spouse. It might be objected that
"loosed" would only be applicable where the spouse died. However, if
in Rom 7:2 Paul intended to limit his words to the case of the death of the
spouse why the admonition to "seek not to be loosed". Did he mean do
not murder your spouse? No, he obviously used the word in this instance to
refer to divorce.
Did the apostle contradict
his own previous teaching by “forbidding to marry” when he said “seek not a
wife” (1Thes 4:1-3) Obviously this was advice that was applicable because of
the “present distress”. He went on to say (verse 28) that they would not sin if
they married . Thus, one “loosed”, whether by death or legal divorce, would not
sin if they married even if they went against his advice.
What does “loosed” mean? Did
it mean the divorce had to have been “for fornication”? No. There is no
indication of that. It simply meant that there was no longer the tie, i.e., the
bond (or binding) was removed or taken away. It evidently applied to persons
who had not merely been “put away” but who had received a “bill of
divorcement”.
DEPART
The true meaning of the word
“depart” is important in our study because of the importance of properly
understanding 1 Corinthians 7:11.
“But and if she *depart*
(chorizo), let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let
not the husband put away his wife."
[Grk. 5563] chorizo
(kho-rid'-zo)
“from 5561; to place room
between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go away:--depart, put asunder, separate.”
It is evident that the word “chorizo” does not mean divorce. First,
it is not given in the definition. Second, the context (in the passage above) indicates
that the woman is still married because the husband is exhorted to not put her
away, which evidently was an exhortation to keep her in the house and remain as
husband and wife. Third, she is to
“reconcile” with her husband rather then marry, which she would need to do
if there had actually been a legal divorce. | 
