Becoming “one flesh” is the ideal of any marriage, a model established with the first couple in Genesis 2:24. However, it faltered after the fall when Adam blamed Eve for his eating of the forbidden fruit.1 This breach of trust in their union marked a turning point. Since then, ‘one flesh’ has represented an ultimate standard akin to residing with God in the Garden of Eden. Since we’ve left Eden, perfection remains unreachable in our fallen world. The hardness of the human heart, often seen in couples turning against each other, is the backdrop as to why divorce is a legitimate reality in the Scriptures. The Bible, primarily through Moses, sought only to set boundaries and regulations, not to dictate whether anyone should or shouldn’t divorce. The choice to divorce or stay together was in the hands of the couple alone, not in the control of the elders of Israel.
The primary biblical source for the laws of divorce is found in Deuteronomy 24:
The passage takes the practice of divorce for granted and is attempting to regulate a particular variation of it. Divorce was a reality, in Israel and elsewhere. How common it was is unclear, but enough passages in the Old Testament refer to it that we must conclude it was not uncommon.2
Since the reasons for divorce vary, the Law spoke in general terms:
When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her…
(Deuteronomy 24:1-2; first half)
According to the Law, a woman who commits adultery is sentenced to death by stoning (Leviticus 20:10-12; Deuteronomy 22:22-24). Therefore, in contrast to what some teach, “some indecency” cannot refer to adultery:
Adultery, however, cannot be supposed here (some indecency) because that was punishable with death.3
Throughout history, Jewish and Christian theologians and commentators have attempted to explain the terms “no favor” and “some indecency.” While I believe Moses intentionally spoke in general terms, various attempts have been made to interpret these terms. For instance:
Something indecent (erwaṯ dāḇār) may have been a technical legal expression; the precise meaning is no longer clear. The same expression used in 23:14, where it suggests something impure, though the words do not seem to have normal connotations. In this context, the words may indicate some physical deficiency in the woman, though this meaning is uncertain. A physical deficiency such as the inability to bear children may be implied.4
Regardless of the husband’s reason for divorcing his wife, he was required to follow the Law. Unlike the Pagans, he couldn’t simply dismiss her without proper procedure. Jewish scholar Professor Corinadeli explains:
The foundations of the act of divorce in the Torah are threefold: (a) the writing of a bill of divorcement by the husband; (b) its delivery to the woman (‘and he shall put it in her hand’); (c) the sending away of the woman from the husband’s house (‘and he shall send her out of his house’), meaning a practical separation between the spouses.5
Unlike modern English, the Hebrew Bible lacks a single word to encapsulate the entirety of the divorce process. Instead, there are three distinct stages/terms. The key verses that discuss the procedure for divorce in Deuteronomy 24 are verses 1-2, which state that if a married man wishes to end his marriage, he may do so by following the Law’s procedure:
- He writes a bill/certificate of divorce.
- He hands it to his wife.
- He puts away his wife, sending her from his house.
Afterwards, she is free to marry again:
…he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she leaves his house and becomes the wife of another man.
(Deuteronomy 24:1-2; second half)
The Law’s approach to divorce is pragmatic, acknowledging the reality of failed marriages while setting a high bar for the sanctity and permanence of the marital relationship. It is important to note that the Law does not encourage nor discourage divorce but merely provides regulations for its conduct.
Since people can decide to marry, it’s only reasonable that they could also choose to divorce, although that is not the ideal outcome God desires. Couples who stay together for decades provide valuable lessons for society; marriage should not be taken lightly, and divorce should not be the easy way out. However, if a marriage becomes detrimental to your body, spirit, or soul, exiting that marriage could, sometimes, be a necessary protective measure.
The written ‘certificate of divorce‘ served as formal evidence for the divorced woman but also prevented her former spouse from making future claims against her. This method surpassed the Code of Hammurabi, where the absence of witnesses to a husband’s verbal dismissal left the ex-wife without dissolution proof. The God of Israel’s commanded written decree was an additional measure to protect divorced women from malicious ex-husbands. Still, this compassionate act was occasionally exploited.
Once the three steps to dissolve the marriage are finalized, if she then marries another man and the second marriage ends either through divorce or the husband’s death, the first husband cannot remarry her (verses 3-4). This law was meant to protect the woman from being threatened or treated poorly, like a piece of property that could be discarded and taken back at the husband’s whim.
If Deuteronomy focuses on the “how,” Exodus 21:10-11 exemplifies some of the “why.” These verses speak of the woman’s rights, especially in the context of those given into marriage by their father as part of a financial agreement (verse 7), likely in disregard to their will. If her husband later takes another wife, a common practice in those times, he must not diminish her food, clothing, or marital rights. If he does not provide her with her basic needs, she is free to divorce without any fine. This passage is one of the earliest indications in the Law not only of divine permission to divorce but also of God’s attempt to protect women living in a hyper-chauvinistic society.
The process outlined in the Law is further developed in the Jewish Talmud, where the rabbis discuss various grounds for divorce, the steps to divorce, the rights of the involved parties, and the specifics of the “GET” (GET is the rabbinic term for the bill of divorce). The GET is the most crucial component of a Jewish divorce; without it, the woman is not free to remarry, and any subsequent relationships are considered adulterous. For example, if a husband refuses to give his wife, who left him, a GET, thereby preventing her from moving on with her life, yet she proceeds to marry another man, both she and her new partner would be living in an adulterous relationship. This was not uncommon.
Regrettably, some Jewish men—then and now—exploit this technicality by physically separating from their wives (“put away“) without granting them the GET (bill of divorce), preventing them from moving on and finding new love. This tactic allows the husbands to “punish” their wives while also avoiding alimony payments. In Judaism, a woman trapped in such a predicament is called an Agunah (“chained woman”).
Divorces initiated by God
The Pentateuch contains narratives that illuminate the nature of divorce from God’s perspective. One example is the story of God instructing Abraham to send away Hagar (Genesis 21:14),6 which can be seen as an early form of divorce. This incident happened before Moses established a legal framework, during a period when Abraham was subject to Mesopotamian law, where a legal document was not necessary for divorce.
Later, in the prophetic writings of the Hebrew Bible, marriage and divorce are potent metaphors to describe the Law-based covenantal relationship between God and Israel. The prophets often employ the imagery of marriage to symbolize the intimate covenant between God and His nation. The imagery of God divorcing Israel is used to represent the severing of this relationship due to Israel’s spiritual infidelity.
For instance, the prophet Hosea’s life is a dramatic enactment of this metaphor. God commands Hosea to marry Gomer, a woman of promiscuity, to symbolize Israel’s unfaithfulness. The tumultuous marriage of Hosea and Gomer reflects the betrayal of Israel through idolatry and moral failure, and their reconciliation mirrors God’s unwavering willingness to forgive and restore (or “remarry”) the broken relationship.
While the primary message of the book of Hosea is about God’s enduring love for Israel despite her unfaithfulness, the literal narrative focuses on Hosea’s marriage to Gomer, a woman who was unfaithful to him. Hosea’s willingness to take Gomer back even after her betrayal can be seen as an example of unconditional love and divine grace. However, this example could also be examined to highlight the deep emotional and spiritual complexities that can arise in a marriage and how divorce may sometimes become necessary.
Moreover, the concept of God divorcing Israel is repeated in passages such as Jeremiah 3:8, where God declares that He had given Israel a certificate of divorce and sent her away: “I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away.” This metaphorical divorce signifies God’s judgment upon Israel for her spiritual unfaithfulness. However, the prophetic narrative does not end with divorce; it later speaks of restoration and renewal. The prophets, including Hosea and Isaiah, foretell a future where the relationship between God and Israel is restored, akin to a renewal of marriage vows, perhaps to highlight God’s enduring love and commitment to His people despite their waywardness. Regardless, the fact that God did divorce Israel remains.
To summarize this section, the Law recognizes the right to divorce and establishes a framework to ensure that divorce is handled with justice, protecting the rights of the individuals while upholding the sanctity of marriage. In the Hebrew Scriptures, divorce was not a rare occurrence and was even, if only metaphorically, employed by God Himself.
Understanding the legal language and laws of the Ancient Near East is crucial when examining biblical terms related to marriage and divorce. Likewise, to fully grasp Jesus’ teachings, it is essential to recognize that they are rooted in the foundational writings of Moses. Understanding Moses is critical to comprehending the consistent message that both he and Jesus conveyed. However, ignoring Moses will lead to flawed conclusions and unfounded beliefs, as we often see today.
Bearing this context in mind, let’s explore one of the most critical nuances of divorce in the Hebrew Scriptures—the often overlooked distinction, particularly by Christians, between “putting away” and issuing a “bill of divorce.”
‘Put away‘ vs. ‘Bill of divorce‘
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 exaggerated, 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.7
A careful interpretation of Scripture demonstrates a consistent message from beginning to end. Crucial for our discussion, the Old and New Testaments use two primary terms to describe marital actions regarding divorce; both can be found in Deuteronomy 24:1-2:
‘BILL OF DIVORCEMENT‘ | ‘PUT AWAY‘
As we discussed earlier in the book, “divorce” is a modern English term that describes a situation where both conditions, issuing a ‘bill of divorce,’ and ‘putting away‘ have been met.
Bill/Certificate of divorcment = formal divorce paper.
Send/Put Away = physical removal.
However, some translations, like the NIV, mistakenly use the word “divorce” to translate both terms throughout the Bible interchangeably. This has caused considerable confusion and, by doing so, has completely changed the theology of divorce. As some of these translations use ‘divorce‘ instead of ‘put away,‘ Christians often mistakenly read ‘put away‘ as ‘divorce.‘ However, Put away does not equate to the modern concept of divorce. This problem also exists in one of the Hebrew New Testament translations.8
‘Bill of Divorcement’ (or ‘Certificate of Divorce’)
Judaism uses the word GET, while the Hebrew Bible uses a combination of two Hebrew words, “Sefer Kritut,“ for the English term “certificate of divorce.” Sefer means a bill, paper, book, scroll, or certificate. Kritut means “cutting.”9 In Hebrew, Sefer Kritut literally translates as “Book of Cutting.“
David Brewer, a Jewish studies researcher from Cambridge University, explains why the certificate of divorce was crucial for any woman being put away:
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.10
“Certificate of divorce” or “Sefer Kritut” only describes the first half of the process, the legal part. In other words, “divorce” or “divorcement” translated in your English Bible encompassed only the legal certificate—Sefer Kritut—in Biblical Hebrew.
While the term “put away” (or “send away“) is seldom related to the term “bill of divorce,” the term “bill of divorce” always appears in conjunction with the term “put away” (e.g., Deuteronomy 24:1,3; Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:8), a testament that two should go hand in hand as part of a divorce process:
This is what the LORD says: “Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce with which I sent her away? Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.”
(Isaiah 50:1)
And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also. Because of the lightness of her harlotry, she polluted the land and committed adultery with stones and trees…
(Jeremiah 3:8-9)
In the context of marriage, while wives were often put away, they were not always granted a bill of divorce. However, if they were granted the bill, they would always be put/sent away. In cases where wives were put away without the bill of divorce, they would become “Agunah.”
Remember, marriages were typically transactional. They usually involved some form of dowry. If a man only slept with a woman, he had to pay a dowry, regardless of whether they married or not (Exodus 22:16-17). Often, the husband had to make a payment, either to the bride’s father, as a dowry in money, assets, estate, or through work if he couldn’t afford it, as seen in Genesis 29 and Genesis 31:14-15. In other cases, the wife’s family paid the husband.
In addition, and as you probably know, polygamy was a common practice during the biblical era. Polygamy served, among other things, as a means for men of higher social status to maintain marital relations with women from lower economic and social classes. In such cases, the man’s wife from the higher status was considered his primary wife, while the woman from the lower status was a ‘concubine,’ usually a wife with much less privileges.
For example, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah, the four wives of Jacob, were all daughters of Laban the Aramean. Rachel and Leah were daughters of Laban’s principal wife. At the same time, Bilhah and Zilpah were born to another woman, a maidservant from the slave class, with whom he had a concubinary relationship. When Leah married Jacob (without his knowledge), her father gave them Zilpah as a maidservant. When Rachel married, they received Bilhah as a maidservant.
Back then, husbands could—and often did—put away their wives without granting them a bill of divorce, thereby saving themselves from losing money, assets, maidservants, or other valuables.
‘Put Away’ (or ‘Send Away’)
In the Hebrew Bible, “put away” (or “sent away“) derives from the Hebrew words “SHALACH” (to send away) and “GARASH” (to drive away or to expel), with the latter being more negative. For example, both words are used in Genesis 3:23-24 when God expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. Likewise, Put/send away is also used in many other non-marital verses. For example: “And Isaac sent away [SHALACH] Jacob: and he went to Padan-aram unto Laban, son of Bethuel the Syrian, the brother of Rebekah, Jacob’s and Esau’s mother.” (Genesis 28:5)
In the context of marriage, “put away” was used to describe a man who physically removed his wife from his home for one reason or another. There were reasons other than divorce for why a spouse might “put away” and not live with the other, such as a contagious disease like leprosy or being compelled by their family for various reasons.
In the context of divorce, this action initially did not involve providing a bill or certificate of divorce until the Law of Moses mandated it. The introduction of writing and giving a certificate of divorce represented a new requirement—not found in earlier laws—to which the men of Israel struggled to adjust.
For this reason, the Law forbids Jewish men—priests included—from taking as wives women who were only put away. For example:
They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband…
(Leviticus 21:7; KJV)
Leviticus forbids marrying a woman put away by whom? By her husband. But if ‘put away’ merely meant she was divorced—she no longer has a husband.
To conclude, “put away” (or “send away“)—SHALACH (or GARASH) in Hebrew—meant only the physical removal or expulsion (of the wife, in most cases, in the context of marriage). At the same time, the “bill of divorcement” was the legal document formally and officially terminating the marriage. It is crucial to differentiate between the two; otherwise, we might arrive at strange, very unbiblical conclusions.
One such example is Malachi 2:16.
Malachi 2:16
“For I hate SHALACH,” says the LORD the God of Israel.
(Malachi 2:16)
While some English translations wrongly use the word “divorce.” (“For I hate divorce.“), some, like the KJV, used “putting away” in translating Malachi 2:16: “For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away…”
What is taking place in chapter 2 of Malachi?
First, recall that through Ezra, God directed the Levites to put away their foreign wives (even if they had shared children; Ezra 10:3). This is a “catch-22” for the fundamentalist interpretation because if “put away” meant “divorce,” then here God requires the Levites to divorce, something He allegedly hates.11
Anyways, the Levites would put away their first wives as well as take additional ones, usually foreign ones. On the one hand, these first wives faced degradation; on the other, they were merely put away without receiving a legal bill of divorce so they could receive back their dowery and move on to find new husbands. It was this act of putting away (without the proper legal formal procedure instructed earlier in the Law) that God hates!12
Israel’s Law required men to provide a written certificate of divorce rather than merely put their wives away (aka, turning them Agunah). In Malachi 2, the men of Israel failed to do so, which led to God’s rebuke. The reason God was upset becomes clear with context:
Because you have not kept My ways, but have shown partiality in the instruction.
(Malachi 2:9)
When men put away their wives without giving them a proper divorce document, it is to show partiality in the instruction. In other words, these men only partially followed the—more convenient for them—biblical prescribed procedure for divorce as ascribed by Israel’s Law, thereby denying their wives liberty and the freedom to remarry.
It would be bizarre to suggest that God, who divorced Israel, commanded Abraham and the Levites to put away their wives and integrated guidelines for divorce in His Law, would suddenly claim He hates and forbids divorce. On the other hand, it makes much more sense that He hates putting away without fully following the process prescribed in His Law of giving the necessary document.
In fact, no one until recently ever associated Malachi 2:16 with divorce, as Christian fundamentalism does today. Historically, interpretations vary, but even the most conservative commentators do not interpret it as an attack on divorce. A few examples below:
No instance can be quoted of these verses being understood in earlier times as an attack on divorce. The LXX and the Tg. take v 16 not as a prohibition against divorce but as a permission to divorce one’s wife. And (5) interpreting this passage as an attack on apostasy to an alien cult is in agreement with the rest of the book of Malachi.13
Smith, R. L.
Judean men were marrying women from other ethnic groups in the region who worshiped pagan gods…The prophet’s overriding concern was not marriage, as such, but the effect of an unwise mixed marriage on a man’s relationship to the Lord.14
Ted Cabal
Septuagint, “If thou hate her and dismiss her,” etc.; Vulgate, “If thou hate her, put her away,” which seems to encourage divorce.15
Donald Spence Jones
Agunah (“Chained Woman”)
In biblical times (as well as modern Judaism), women could not formally initiate divorce; only men could. In this ancient patriarchal society, men often married several women, but a woman could not marry more than one husband. If a woman desired to leave her marriage, the man was required to provide her with a certificate of divorce, along with any associated financial settlement. This, however, wasn’t that easy, as men would often put away their wives without granting them a divorce certificate. In this situation, a woman is defined as Agunah:
An agunah (chained woman) is a woman whose marriage has in fact ended or been suspended but who legally remains a married woman (bound to a husband who no longer lives with her) and thus is unable to remarry.16
Ronald L. Eisenberg
Simply put, an Agunah is an alias for a woman whose husband has put away without granting her a legal divorce certificate; she is practically divorced but not legally. The argument in Judaism was: Is it lawful to marry an Agunah (woman separated from her husband) or not? This debate is still very much alive and continues to this day. To whet your appetite, here is a short excerpt from an article in a well-known Israeli newspaper:
Is Agunah Tamar Epstein’s Remarriage Legal Without Orthodox Divorce? Epstein, who has conducted a high-profile, years-long campaign to force her recalcitrant ex-husband to grant her a religious bill of divorce, appeared recently to have found a way around her dilemma. Tamar Epstein, the prominent “chained woman” whose right to remarry under traditional Jewish law was long stymied, may have finally found two Orthodox rabbis willing to help her wed again.17
The term “Agunah” originates from the Hebrew word for anchor (moor), visually depicting a chained woman unable to move on.
The plight of the Agunah, or chained wife, is a critical moral challenge in Jewish law. Not following the 3-step procedure prescribed in the Law has led to situations where women are unable to remarry since their husbands refuse to grant a GET/divorce certificate, effectively leaving them in a legal state of limbo.
The issue of Agunah has been intensely explored in Judaism in both rabbinic and scholarly discussions, revealing the situation’s complexity.18 These wives were legally chained to their husbands but not living with them, or in other words, women whom their husbands had put away without granting them a bill of divorce. They were practically—but not legally— divorced. The most typical case involves a husband who has disappeared or put/sent away his wife without the necessary certificate, leaving these women unable to remarry within the faith.
Many Israelite women who were ‘put away‘ by their husbands without a bill of divorce and became Agunah managed to find shelter with another man, which sometimes was a life-saving solution for them. However, since their previous marriages had not legally and formally ended, they were not considered divorced according to the Law and, therefore, were regarded as adulteresses if they married another man. Without the bill of divorce, they were not legally divorced but still married to their first husbands.
This, sometimes, was a way for husbands to get revenge or punish their wives/handmaids/concubines. A classic example can be found in 2 Samuel 20:3:
Then David came to his house in Jerusalem, and the king took the ten women, the concubines whom he had left behind to take care of the house, and put them in custody and provided them with food, but did not have relations with them. So they were locked up until the day of their death, living as widows.
2 Samuel 20:3, NASB
Today, in the Western Christian world, the status of a woman as a chained deserted wife (‘Agunah’) does not exist because modern law generally prevents it. However, this phenomenon always existed in Judaism, even today.
Agunah in New Testament times
The Hebrew term “put away” (SHALACH) is represented in the New Testament by the Greek word “apoluó“/”apolysē.”
For example, Mark 15:11 says, “Pilate release Barabbas.” The Greek word translated into the English “release” is “apolysē,” meaning to put/send away, indicating a physical release (Pilate obviously did not divorce Barabbas.)
However, in marriage-related verses, some modern English translations have chosen to use the word ‘divorce‘ instead of ‘put away.’ I believe this error, at least partly, stems from Christianity’s unfamiliarity with the concept of Agunah.
Again, the New Testament’s “apoluó“/”apolysē,” much like the Old Testament’s “put away,” indicates only a physical separation, not the legal dissolution of marriage. Therefore, “divorce” would be the wrong word choice.
To better illustrate, see the comparison below between the modern English translation, the NIV, and the older King James version, using Mark 10:11, where the word apolysē is used:
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery.
NIV
Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery.
KJV
According to the NIV, remarriages are viewed as adultery. However, according to the KJV, committing adultery is when a man marries another woman while still married to his wife, whom he had only physically put away—an Agunah.
I am positive you can tell which translation makes more sense.
If in Mark 10:11 Jesus did speak of divorce, we would see the Greek word “apostasion” being used. “Apostasion” means divorce in its legal sense and is the Greek parallel to the Hebrew “certificate/bill of divorce.” The word ‘apostasion’ combines “apo” (away from) and “stasis” (‘state,’ ‘standing,’ ‘established by law’), implying the formal end of a marriage contract through a written document of divorce, also known as a certificate/bill of divorce.
Only the combination of both ‘apoluó‘ (put away) and ‘apostasion‘ (bill of divorce) constitutes a “divorce” as required by the Law. Remember, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 states that if a man marries a woman and then finds something objectionable about her, he may (1) write her a bill of divorce, (2) hand it to her, and (3) put her away. Only then is she no longer “bound” (either married or betrothed) but “loosed” (released from marriage through either the death of a spouse or legal divorce.) Remember also that Jesus and His disciples were Jews who meditated on the Law of Moses day and night (Joshua 1:8; Psalm 1:2).
The early church fathers, many of whom harbored antisemitic views, distanced themselves from Jewish practices and beliefs. This trend persisted among the traditional churches and the Reformers (namely Luther and Calvin, both of whom were extremely antisemitic19). Overlooking the Jewish context of Yeshua’s teachings, as often happens in Christianity, inevitably results in misguided and incorrect interpretations.20
If a man sends away his wife without a bill of divorce and marries another woman while still legally married, he commits adultery. Similarly, a woman whose husband has put away cannot marry another man unless she has the proper divorce documents. Marrying a woman in such a situation—Agunah—is unlawful.
Choosing the correct translation is vital. Some translations claim that God views a legally documented divorce as merely a separation and, therefore, considers any remarriage as adultery. This stance conflicts with earlier divine directives on divorce and remarriage and fails to hold up logically, even within the argument that adultery is the sole justification for divorce.
Let’s conclude: The Law’s instructions are clear: the act of sending away (‘Put away‘; ‘SHALACH‘ in Hebrew, ‘apoluó’ in Greek) must accompany the giving of a written certificate of divorce (‘SEFER KRITUT‘ in Hebrew, ‘apostasion‘ in Greek). Otherwise, without a formal writ, the separated woman—Agunah—remains legally bound and ineligible to remarry.
Suppose a husband failed to provide a bill of divorce. In that case, he not only failed to free her for potential support from a future husband but also shared responsibility for any resulting adultery, his or hers.
Testing the hypothesis
Now, let’s compare the Luke 16:18 translation in the ESV with that of the KJV:
Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
ESV
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
KJV
Notice that the ESV chose “divorce” rather than “put away.” Additionally, the ESV (and other translations) states, “he who marries a woman divorced from her husband.” This translation seems illogical because if a woman is divorced, who is her husband? She has no husband if she’s divorced. Remember, Jesus was speaking to Law-observing Jews. These words can only make sense if her husband had put her away while they were still legally married—Agunah. That’s also why marrying such an Agunah woman would be considered adultery—she’s still married to another man!
Why would a husband want to keep his wife Agunah?
What is the purpose of a husband sending away his wife without issuing the legal divorce certificate? Consider a scenario where a wife brings her own money into the marriage, and her husband puts her away without providing a legal bill of divorce. In such a case—keeping her as an Agunah—he wouldn’t be legally obligated to return her money since they are not legally divorced. As a result, he would continue to control and profit from her dowry.
While the man was prohibited from depleting the original value of her dowry, he could benefit from the returns on its investment. So, from a financial standpoint, it was worth withholding the dowry (or Ketubah settlement), depriving the wife of the financial support she was due until she could remarry:
Until the husband has returned his wife’s dowry and paid her the fine, or until she has accepted it, the husband remained liable for supporting her, even if they were no longer living together. Some (ex-)husbands, then as now, tried to avoid supporting their (ex-) wives.21
This is why men would legally keep their wives on paper but practically put them away. Keeping them bound as Agunah was more cost-effective. Therefore, the Law aims to protect these women by requiring their husbands to provide a bill of divorce if they no longer wish to be with them. This allows the women to move on and find refuge with a new partner.
Divorce laws were meant to protect the financial aspect of the marriage as well, emphasizing the importance of providing the bill of divorce that was linked to the monetary settlement:
The certificate was vital for the woman, especially if the document relinquished the husband’s rights to her and her dowry and authorized her to return to her family of origin or to marry another man.22
The Agunah dilemma was—and still is—a significant conundrum in Judaism:
Unless some workable solution is accepted, the agunah is faced with three terrible choices. She can resign herself to her desperate fate, embark on an arduous and often unsuccessful search to find a halakhic authority willing and able to find some technicality to release her from an untenable marriage, or be forced to abandon the observant Jewish community to attain personal fulfillment in a new marriage.
23
To summarize
In the hyper-patriarchal society of biblical times, men wielded power, authority, control, and possessions, while women, often viewed as property, had limited rights. During this period, it was a harsh practice for men to abandon their wives without issuing a divorce certificate. This left these women legally bound but effectively discarded, unable to remarry, and trapped in a state of limbo, like neglected possessions. The husband, no longer providing love, care, or support, barred the wife from finding another partner who might. Some of these women did remarry, but this meant both they and their new husbands were considered to be living in adultery. The introduction of the bill of divorcement in the Bible was a measure to free women from the plight of being Agunah. It was not sin but a remedy to sin:
“Such a form of divorce, gave only into the hand of the divorced wife that which would show, that she was legitimately dismissed, and so free, both generally and before other men, and over against her husband hitherto (ver 4).”24
This article was a summary/excerpt from my new micro-book. To continue reading:
“Christian and Divorce: What the Bible REALLY Says About Divorce & Remarriage“
- Remember, when God forbade Adam from eating from the Tree of Knowledge, Eve hadn’t been created yet. ↩︎
- Gerald Gerbrandt, Deuteronomy: Believers Church Bible Commentary, 2015. ↩︎
- Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Ed.). (1909). Deuteronomy (p. 381). London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company. ↩︎
- Craigie, P. C. (1976). The Book of Deuteronomy (p. 305). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. ↩︎
- The Personal Status of the Karaites by Michel Corinaldi, Dr. Jur. 1984. ↩︎
- The text uses the same word, SHALACH, as in Deuteronomy 24:1. ↩︎
- Kaiser, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning, 2007., p. 63-64 ↩︎
- The modern Hebrew word used today by Israelis (which is also used in one of the modern Hebrew translations of the New Testament, which is based on the NIV) to describe the entire 3-step divorce process is GIRUSHIN. This can be confusing for modern Hebrew speakers because the word is derived from the biblical word GARASH. However, Judaism and the Hebrew Bible use different terms. ↩︎
- From the Hebrew word KARATH, meaning ‘to cut off.’ ↩︎
- D. Brewer, “Deuteronomy 24:1–4 and the Origin of the Jewish Divorce Certificate” ↩︎
- Remember John MacArthur’s declaration: “Without exception, divorce is a product of sin, and God hates it. He never commands it, endorses it, or blesses it.” ↩︎
- The word “hate” is also often misunderstood, as it is sometimes confused with the modern and emotional concept of “hate.” You can explore this topic further in my micro-book “Lost in Translation: 15 Hebrew Words to Transform Your Christian Faith.” ↩︎
- Smith, R. L. (1998). Micah–Malachi (Vol. 32, p. 323). Dallas: Word, Incorporated. ↩︎
- Cabal, T., Brand, C. O., Clendenen, E. R., Copan, P., Moreland, J. P., & Powell, D. (2007). The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (p. 1396). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers. ↩︎
- Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Ed.). (1909). Malachi (p. 23). London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company. ↩︎
- Ronald L. Eisenberg, The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions, 1st ed. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2004), 70. ↩︎
- https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2015-12-03/ty-article/agunah-tamar-epstein-to-remarry-is-it-legal/0000017f-f744-d47e-a37f-ff7c904d0000 ↩︎
- For instance, Rabbi Gershon Shalom, professor of Judaism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, as part of an international team of specialists, examined a fragment of ancient parchment dated back to the time of Moses that sheds light on Jewish divorce law and the plight of the Agunah. These scholarly investigations and historical analyses highlight the ongoing struggle to reconcile the challenges faced by Agunah wives with the principles of Jewish law, underscoring the complexity and depth of this issue within the Jewish legal and religious tradition. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-agunah-key-a-true-story-that-never-happened ↩︎
- For an in-depth exploration of antisemitism in the church, see “Reason #2: What Was Done to Us in Jesus’s Name —Christian antisemitism & Replacement Theology.” in my book, “Why Don’t Jews Believe in Jesus.” ↩︎
- For insightful tips on how to read and understand the Bible more effectively, be sure to check out my book “Read Like a Jew: 8 Rules of Basic Bible Interpretation for the Christian.” ↩︎
- Johnson, J. (2002). Women’s legal rights in ancient Egypt. University of Chicago Library Digital collections. ↩︎
- Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy (The NIV Application Commentary), 2012. ↩︎
- Ronald L. Eisenberg, The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions, 1st ed. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2004), 73. ↩︎
- Lange, J. P., Schaff, P., & Schröeder, W. J. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Deuteronomy (pp. 175–176). Bellingham, WA. ↩︎
