What is the difference between put away and divorce

That dismissal may be of a legal assembly, or a spiritual assembly. There is nothing about the word apoluo that allows its use for one kind of dismissal, while disallowing its use for the other. Luke spoke of the actions of the town clerk when he recorded, "And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed apoluo the assembly. Jesus said, "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive apoluo , and ye shall be forgiven apoluo " Luke Here the word apoluo is used of one being set free, loosed, or released from the guilt and consequences of sin.

Although some religious groups do seek to intertwine civil, human authority with divine authority in this area, honest Bible students will grant no such connection. Civil authorities, including courts and legislative bodies, have absolutely no role in the granting of divine pardon.

Jesus had power on earth to forgive sins Mk. In Luke , apoluo is used to stress this right or power. Luke twice uses apoluo in ways having nothing to do with civil authorities, or cultural procedures or requirements. Luke 13 tells of a sick woman who was healed by Jesus. She "had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bent over and could in no way raise herself up.

Early in the next chapter we read:. Nothing is said in either of these passages about any civil law procedure. Jesus had the right to do both. Emphasis is not upon any procedure for loosing, but upon the right to loose. Closely related to the previous examples, the King James translators opted for the word "liberty" as an acceptable rendering of apoluo in a couple of passages.

The Hebrew writer said, "Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty apoluo ; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you" Heb. Concerning Paul, Agrippa told Festus, "This man might have been set at liberty apoluo , if he had not appealed unto Caesar" Acts The idea is that of being released or freed , as newer versions have it.

Again, just because the general term apoluo is used in connection with governmental action does not mean that it always implies such involvement. We have examined many passages already, and shall see many more ahead, that simply do not make any such connection. After Jesus had cast the demons out of the man in the country of the Gadarenes, the man returned to Jesus, hoping that he might stay with Him. Acts tells of the occasion when the prophets and teachers at the church in Antioch were told to "Separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.

On different occasions we read where Jesus sent the multitudes away apoluo Matt. All of these passages use the word apoluo and none of them either state or imply anything about civil authorities or cultural procedures!

Honest Bible students are simply forced to conclude that the Greek word that is translated "divorce" in many translations of the Bible does not necessarily include any particular civil or cultural procedure.

We then read that his master "was moved with compassion, and loosed apoluo him, and forgave him the debt" Matt. Here, apoluo is used in close connection with forgiveness , as in Luke As I pointed out there, the word is used apart from any civil law, or cultural procedure defining its action.

It would be difficult for any Bible student to think of the word "release," without thinking of Jesus and Pilate. In these passages, the word "release" is a translation of the Greek word "apoluo. Matthew speaks of the custom of the governor " releasing apoluo unto the multitude a prisoner whom they wished. Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? He said, "Whether of the twain will ye that I release apoluo unto you?

It is important to note, that in the above passages, apoluo is used to describe the actions of one man in granting the biased wish of an angry mob. The granting of this wish to release Barabbas meant the release of a murderer Acts Thus, here is an example of the word apoluo being used to describe an unapproved loosing. Legally speaking, and ignoring the spiritual implications of this event, Jesus retained the right to be loosed, for He remained "holy and just" Acts Pilate, the acting civil authority, was "determined to let Jesus go" Acts The conclusion is simple.

The word apoluo is a general New Testament word for loosing, releasing or freeing. Its use is no necessary reflection or infringement upon the legitimate, God-given rights of the parties involved.

This fact becomes extremely important in the divorce passages that we shall consider immediately below. The last two words that I wish to consider are the words "put" or "put away" and "divorce.

For the most part, brethren have had little difficulty understanding apoluo in most of the above connections. However, differences have arisen over the meaning of this same word when it is translated by the word "divorce. It carries the same idea of loosing, separating, freeing, dismissing, leaving, departing or sending away.

Furthermore, there is nothing inherent in the word that requires a connection with civil authority or any cultural, societal, or civil procedure. Romans and 1 Peter do require our compliance with civil authorities and procedures. However, this compliance is limited to areas where divine authority is not negated.

Let us remember that direct statements, approved apostolic examples, and necessary conclusions express divine authority. There have been recent efforts to limit the realm of our commitment to God to direct commands, at least in areas where civil law contradicts God.

This teaching is an affront to God. This doctrine tells God that His word is so weak and feeble that human authority can nullify it.

Jesus twice used the word apoluo in Matthew , in His response to the Pharisees. Note carefully, that I said they could break the "marriage" at any given time. There is a huge difference between a "marriage" and a marriage "bond. Jesus taught that a person could divorce his wife, without scriptural cause, and "marry another," but that new union would be adulterous Matt. Romans says a woman would be an adulteress if she "married" one man, while being "bound" to another.

Thank you James! I appreciate you pointing that out. And I now get it. Very neat. Omitting details for my protection. For me, there are times the phrase bait and switch can ALSO feel like I am left banging my head against a brick wall. To paraphrase Seeing Clearly 19TH JUNE — AM , I feel like a curtain is being drawn back to expose the man behind the curtain who non-verbally gaslit me from the day I was baptized in the hospital as a very sick infant.

Malachi …. A husband has given up on the marriage. He no longer contributes anything positive to the relationship. He behaves treacherously and hard heartedly behind closed doors. However, he will not be the one to file for divorce. In his heart, he has left the marriage.

He is a coward and will not expose his true colors by initiating divorce. We can imagine how this rejection is severely affecting his wife. With hardly any life left, she files for divorce. Ah ha! Now he takes on the roll of a martyr. He will fake broken-heartedness and abandonment.

He claims to be the victim. There is not a place in these churches for women to carry out in public what her husband has already carried out in his own home.

I hope I have not stretched the scripture too far out of correctness. But this is what came to mind when I read Malachi. You may correct me. In the days when the Bible was written, their legal system was different. Our systems require one party to file at the state court for divorce. The husband simply wrote a certificate of divorce, dated it correctly, and handed it to his wife.

Dr Instone-Brewer has cited documentary evidence of the fact that Jewish women in those days sometimes asked their religious leaders rabbis, scribes to put pressure on the husband to make him write a certificate of divorce so the wife could be free and she would then be able to marry another man if she so wished. Sometimes this pressure on the husband worked.

But still, this is not the same thing as our modern court systems. She was divorced after a short marriage, left with two very young children and syphilis. It may be that their children think lots of them, but for how long. Only until their father or some other sets them up against her.

God pity every woman who has to go through what I have. Thanks Seeing Clearly for sharing that with us. Your great grandmother was a courageous and honest woman. She was divorced after a short marriage, left with two very young children and syphilis……. And how did the church leader respond to you then? When my now ex was in crisis mode in marriage and ministry career, another church stepped in for crisis intervention. I had a sense everyone was wasting their time, trying to help a man who did not want to change.

I made an appt with the minister who would be coming alongside my ex, professionally. A well respected elder from the helping church joined me as I sought specifics of goals, approach and time allotted for the intervention. The elder knew my ex well and added to my questions. Over and over, an answer was avoided, just a brush off was verbalized.

I clearly stated that my profession requires wearing latex gloves, changed often throughout the day. I could possibly lose the ring or the diamond. On that evening, I had not remembered to put it back on. The elder spoke up that he too, did not wear his due to safety issues in his construction career. The appointment was ended by his question of me. The minister remained seated behind his big desk.

We put our chairs back in their places and walked out. It took me three days to get out of my uncomfortable fog and begin to figure out what happened. I did not return to that man behind the big desk again. So his question fits the definition of Rhetoric that James gave in his comment. This discussion and the examples are helping me understand and discern more about the tactics of manipulators. Thank you for highlighting how it fits criteria. Barbara , he was, physically, a small man behind a very big desk.

He was second in command to a strong, charismatic senior pastor. Here is the thought that hit me on day 3. I was, unknowingly, describing the small man, making him very uncomfortable. He must have felt he had been found out. So he pushed back on me very hard to silence me, once and for all. Or does it refer to your ex?

Seeing Clearly, you wrote — Over and over, an answer was avoided, just a brush off was verbalized. You were very wise to not go back. The minister was playing judge behind his big desk and was viewing you as the defendant. You would have picked up that power imbalance subconsciously if not consciously and reacted accordingly with an increasing sense of powerlessness. You were bullied; and it was a set-up.

You answered his question about the wedding ring literally not registering consciously the implications. You then went into a fog afterwards. It is really, really hard to counter this sort of treatment, the implied ad hominem attack; especially if it plays into ptsd. I have found an answer to it, though. I used to be married to a clinical psychologist; and a very manipulative one at that. She would ask me questions that had hidden implications and do so usually when I was focused on something else such as leaving the room to go to the shops or engaged in reading or just after a discussion has seemingly finished.

I am an open sort of person and think and talk literally as the default mode, as it were. I finally got myself into the habit of stopping to think before I answered anything. Even if I knew what to say, I would count to 3 before opening my mouth. I would practice this whenever I could with whomever I was talking to. That little question undoes all the manipulation.

Now the manipulator has to explain themselves and you are now on the front foot instead of on the backfoot trying to keep your balance. You are now focused outwardly on them instead of focusing inwardly on yourself. Big difference. Whenever there is a power imbalance, you are in a boxing ring. You need to focus all your attention on your opponent if you want to stay on your feet and not get blindsided.

A boxing ring is no place for introspection. You can do that later. If anyone is interested, they can practice this with a friend. You will notice how different you feel doing it. You will be much more poised like our French fencer! First practice counting to three before responding to a question.

Ask because you are curious. The attitude is key. Look at the bridge of their nose and you will see their whole body. For me, your entire comment is helpful, James. I just need to learn how adapt it to my own unique circumstances. 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.

Matthew My understanding again is that men were forced to divorce their wives rather than just putting them away and being greedy because of the hardness of their hearts. That is why one is only free if the husband put her away without divorcing her if he was unfaithful. In some other scriptures it uses the word divorce when it should be put away, making it confusing. Could this be a mistranslation over many years. It really has me curious. Have you ever played the gossip game. One person starts a sentence and u pass it around the room.

When it is passed on the 25 person or so, it is a completly changed sentence. How can we be sure that the Hebrew and greek words were properly put into english with the exact context that was intended?????? The greek word for put away is apuolo I can not remember the greek word for divorce, but translators that have reasearched this have that the exact translation was lost. Another loophole? Or is there any possiblity?

The greek word for sent away is apoulo and the greek word for divorce is aposatian. The word divorce is used three times in the bible and it refers to the legal aspects, not just sending one away. I have a few websites to read more if you are interested.

I found so many regarding this topic. Please let me know what you think. Nov 16, We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today? Nov 17, 2. Thankyou Lost This was one of the most freeing, soothing articles I have ever read. I read something quite similar in a book called "Divorce, God's Will? So many innocent abused women get doubly abused by Christians who put so much condemnation on them for divorcing abusive husbands.

I was one of them. It is also true that alot of those women join feminists groups and become anti-man and anti-church. I have a friend who this happened to. She considers herself a Christian, but she has become pro-choice, and advises women against marrying Christians. Thanks again and God bless. Like x 1 List. Nov 17, Dec 4, 3. Just incase anyone is interested there is a site called www. Dec 4, Dec 6, 4. I have never heard this perspective before.

It is an interesting perspective. I am not sure what I think about it yet. I do know that divorce has caused many problems in our generation espeacially for the children. Even without an explicit command in scripture against it, I would say common sense goes against it being a good thing for me to be breaking a vow I made to God and to the witnesses present. I do think also that common sense dictates exceptions for some cases.