Proposition: 
When Jesus stated that when one "puts away" his  spouse, except 
it be for fornication, and marries another he commits adultery 
Mt19:9), he was only talking about cases where one was merely "put
away" by his spouse without "a bill of divorcement.

Affirm: Robert Waters 
Deny:  Brian Galloway

Webmaster's note:  All links given in this debate will open in
a separate browser window.

It is an honor and privilege to discuss this important subject – 
divorce and remarriage. 

[Unlike others, I am not dividing up my affirmative arguments 
into three parts. In this article I am presenting Brian with 
virtually all the arguments I presently have on the "put away" 
verses divorce issue.  He will have three responses and I will 
have two further responses to reply to his arguments.] 

The subject of "divorce and remarriage" continues to trouble many 
brethren. While many are certain they have the truth (i.e., that 
a divorced person cannot remarry), their position is not without 
problems. I will begin this debate by highlighting these 
problems. This is followed by an appeal to each one to examine 
the teaching he has received and consider the question, "Could I 
be in error?" 

My objective, of course, is to persuade you that the teaching I 
am presenting on this subject is according to the Scriptures. 
There is only one real objection that others put forward against 
the teaching of the Scriptures: that is, it is not understood, 
not believed, and not practiced by the majority of brethren, or 
by men of great influence in the brotherhood. This is a serious 
obstacle or hurdle to overcome in the mind of some – serious 
enough to justify rejecting what the Scriptures teach and 
attempting to keep others from learning the truth. 

Some have continually made the charge that "my position" promotes 
adultery. However, the charge is only true IF their understanding 
of Jesus' teaching is correct. You cannot disprove the position 
of another by making arguments that are only true IF you are 
correct in that which you are defending. Let us see if I can 
illustrate the point just made. Imagine that you are trying to 
teach a Catholic that Christians should not pray to Mary.  You 
show them what the Scriptures teach, but it has little impact on 
them because they believe the Pope has authority to add to the 
Scriptures. Thus, despite the scriptures you site, you will not 
make any progress because they will always return to their 
fundamental argument. It is this fundamental argument, then, that 
must be confronted before the truth of the Scriptures has any 
impact. We can all see that their base or fundamental argument is 
not sound. 

Those who hold to the "traditional" view are not willing to 
reject their position simply because it is seen to have serious 
hermeneutical problems. Therefore, in this discussion, I will be 
confronting the base argument because I believe this is the 
correct approach in the present discussion. 

The views that many have drawn from the teaching of Jesus on 
divorce and remarriage, and their subsequent effort to apply 
such, have probably given brethren more difficulties, more 
heartaches, and resulted in more turmoil than all other difficult 
passages combined. This, unbelievably, is, for the most part, due 
to just one word being mistranslated and therefore misused.  
After expounding on Matthew 19:9, and 5:32 you will see for 
yourself how the scriptural teaching on this subject is plain, 
easily understood, and makes perfect sense. 

Does It Make Any Difference Who Is Right? 

Absolutely! If what I teach is false then I am encouraging people 
to marry who have no right to marry, and they commit adultery if 
they do marry; a state in which they remain as long as they are 
married. 

However, if what I teach is in harmony with the Scriptures then a 
person's spouse who has divorced them unjustly or has made a 
mistake in their choice of partner (and consequently were 
unjustly divorced), may truly receive forgiveness and, as an 
"unmarried" person, rightfully marry to "avoid fornication" (1 
Cor 7:2, 8, 9).  If this is true, think of the opportunities for 
evangelism? Many evangelists spend a lot of time teaching the way 
of salvation to someone only to find out (at the point of their 
obedience) that they are in their second marriage. What effect 
does this have on that prospect? Well, in most cases, they cannot 
be convinced that God would have them end their legal marriage, 
and so they end up not obeying the gospel. They will say 
something like, "If repentance means I must end my present 
marriage, then I do not want to become a Christian. The problem 
here is that the preacher places a yoke on the person that is not 
easy and a burden that is too heavy to bear (Mat 11:29-30); which 
Jesus never required. Jesus said, "My yoke is easy and my burden 
is light".  Brian, how do you harmonize you teach (which requires 
the breakup of families and celibacy for life) with the above 
passage? 

Brian, I sincerely pray that you have a love of the truth, to the 
extent that you are willing to disregard traditional beliefs if 
necessary? If so, then I believe this will be a fruitful 
discussion. 

I want to suggest some reasons why you should reject the 
"traditional" position and accept the truth I now see and teach.  
What I'm endeavoring to share with you is logical, reasonable, 
demonstrates God's consistency (rather than having changed the 
law on divorce and remarriage three times), shows God as Just (by 
not punishing the innocent); and demonstrates the harmony of 
Jesus', Moses' and Paul's teaching; which does not hinder 
evangelism and should be a firm foundation for unity. 

Several Problems with Brian's Position on Divorce and Remarriage: 

1. Brian affirms that Jesus teaching requires a divorced person 
to remain celibate for the rest of their life. This is based on 
the assumption that Jesus changed the Law (which allowed divorced 
persons to marry) while he lived. Jesus, Brian says, taught that 
(and it would certainly have applied to everyone at that time) a 
person who had been divorced for a reason other than fornication 
and had remarried was, in fact, living in adultery. In our 
previous debate, I demonstrated that Jesus' teachings did not and 
could not possibly contradict the established Law that God had 
given to the Israelites. Brian's defense was flawed from the 
beginning. His position has been widely rejected and abandoned.  
Even my strongest opponents have said they never taught what 
Brian teaches. In fact, they were offended when I misunderstood 
one brother and, consequently, misrepresented him on the matter. 
Nevertheless, they have recently come up with a new approach. 
They say Jesus did not contradict the Law but merely "pointed to" 
the new law.  A refutation of that theory may be read at my web 
site. refutation

2. Brian's position is unreasonable because it requires that God 
punish just persons for the sins of another; such as when one 
spouse divorces his faithful spouse and marries another. The 
faithful one (who did not sin), is then required to remain 
celibate. I challenge Brian to harmonize his teaching with the 
following passages: Deut 32:4 "He is the Rock, His work is 
perfect: for all His ways are judgment: a God of truth and 
without iniquity, just and right is He." Pro 17:15 "He that 
justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they 
both are abomination to the LORD." Pro 17:26  "Also to punish the 
just is not good, nor to strike princes for equity." 

3. It is bad hermeneutics to construe what Jesus taught to mean 
something that contradicts what is elsewhere taught in numerous 
passages (and in various ways).  This rule: "Do not construe one 
passage so as to contradict another," is either ignored or, a 
faulty argument is presented to explain away the contradictory 
passage; such as 1 Tim 4:1-4. (See below) 

4.  It is against a direct command of God to forbid marriage (1 
Tim 4:1-3) for those who are "unmarried" or who have no marriage; 
because He said, "Let them marry". Indeed, it may be true that a 
man does not have a scriptural right to marry a certain person, 
for various reasons, but the passage clearly teaches against the 
human legislation that certain people have no right to a marriage 
at all (See also 1 Cor 7:2; 8, 9; 27, 28) 

5. Brian's position requires that Paul's teachings be interpreted 
in light of the assumptions upon which his doctrine (Brian's) is 
based.  For instance, Paul's commands to let people marry are 
generally understood, believed and accepted, except in the case 
of the divorced. Paul never said the divorced would not be 
included in those who needed marriage and were allowed to marry. 
Thus, Paul's teachings are being deliberately construed to 
harmonize with a passage elsewhere that has already been 
predetermined to have settled the issue. (Consider the 
illustration previously given about the Catholic who keeps 
"proving" his doctrine by referring to a false authority.) Thus, 
those who do this are like the teacher of the "faith only" 
doctrine, who asserts that John 3:16 is "clear" and must be 
believed and accepted. For an article I have written that deals 
(with this point I refer you to my web site:  click here for article) 

The only passage that could reasonably be misconstrued to support 
what Brian contends is 1 Cor 7:10-11.  But this passage has been 
misapplied to combat the observation noted above.  (See the 
following URL for my handling of this passage: celibacy article ) 

(Brian has complained about me using these links, but then in his 
last two replies he chose not to quote from me but rather to 
refer the reader to my last installment. Whether or not he 
chooses to reply to what is said in a linked article does not 
matter to me). 

At any rate, Paul is clearly teaching (1 Cor 7:8, 9) that those 
who are "unmarried" (agamos), which includes ALL who have no 
marriage, are to be allowed to marry. It simply means: "not 
joined to another person by marriage" (Encarta Dictionary). Paul 
says, "Let them marry".  And then there is the Greek word lusis, 
found in verse 27, which specifically refers to and applies to 
the divorced: "from 3089; a loosening, i.e. (specially), 
divorce:--to be loosed" (Strong).  Paul said, "Art thou loosed 
from a wife? seek not a wife", which was advice because of "the 
present distress".  "But and if thou marry, thou hast not 
sinned."  There is no reason to conclude that Paul's teachings 
here were to be understood as being limited to widowed persons, 
or any other restriction.  Those who were loosed (divorced), 
regardless of the reason, are told they can marry "without sin".  
The only thing contrary to this thinking is the assumption on 
which Brian's doctrine is based, i.e., his misunderstanding of 
Jesus' teachings. 

6. It is against reason, which is something God invites us to do 
with Him (Isaiah 1:18), to conclude that a man is still married, 
bound and obligated to a person who has legally divorced him and 
married another.  Failure to allow persons who have been divorced 
(and therefore have no marriage) to marry can only be justified 
by successfully affirming that the divorce did not end the 
marriage and/or that they are in fact still "bound" to 
faithfulness (or just simply "bound", with no explanation as to 
how or what) by the covenant. The only evidence that is offered 
for that conclusion is what they assert that Jesus taught. There 
are some who argue that one who is divorced is still "bound" (and 
cannot marry) simply because Jesus said so, and make no further 
argument. But considering that Jesus could not have taught that 
divorced persons cannot marry (for reasons proven in the previous 
debate) there absolutely MUST be some other explanation for 
Jesus' teachings.  If someone thinks they have a better 
explanation than the one to which I now hold, I want to hear 
about it.  If I see that it is better, I will change. 

Did Moses Command The "Bill of Divorce" Be Given? 

I want to point out a recent change in my thinking and teaching.  
Some time ago I had stated that God does not approve of divorce 
and that he nowhere commands it. I believe that since God 
divorced his wife (Israel) it was for the good (Jer 3:8).  There 
was no trust, no intimacy, no relationship and no hope of 
restoring it. Thus, God divorced and married another. Also, we 
find in Deut 24:1-4 a clear command to write the bill of 
divorcement. First, let it be understood that this was no 
command, or even license, for treachery against one's spouse, 
which is what God "hateth" (Mal 2:16).  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: "…That he shall write her a bill 
of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his 
house" (ASV).  When Jesus asked, "What did Moses command you" 
(Mark 10:2), in reference to Deut 24:1-4, do you suppose that the 
Pharisees did not understand Him to be explaining that Moses gave 
a command? 

Here is the proposition that I am affirming and which Brian is 
denying: 

"When Jesus stated that when one `puts away' his spouse, except 
it be for fornication, and marries another, he commits adultery 
(Matt 19:9), He was only talking about cases where one was merely 
`put away' by his spouse without `a bill of divorcement'". 

In the last debate, Brian said the following:
 "Concerning `putting away' and divorce, they both mean divorce, 
and they have been used interchangeably since New Testament 
times." 

Indeed, the above reflects the traditional thinking on the matter 
regarding the meaning of "put away" from the Greek APOLUO. But is 
it not possible that most of our misunderstandings and problems 
relating to divorce and remarriage could be due to something as 
simple as having misunderstood and misapplied one word?  It may 
seem hard to believe.  But it is also hard to believe that 
religious people could ever be so deceived as to practice 
imposing celibacy on people if the Bible specifically forbad it, 
and it does (1 Tim 4:1-3).  Also, think about all the various 
religions and doctrines in the world and then consider the 
possibility that you too could have been deceived! 

In some instances the Greek word APOLUO has been translated into 
English versions, as "divorce" when, to be consistent, the 
translation should have been "put away".  Are you aware that 
there is a word in Matt 19:7-9 for "put away" and another for 
"divorce" and that some versions have translated them as 
"divorce" in both cases?  It may be hard to believe that the 
divorce and remarriage issue is misunderstood because of such a 
simple misunderstanding on the meaning of the Greek word 
"apoluo".  Indeed, it is hard to believe that cautious disciples 
of Christ would have allowed themselves to be deceived on such an 
important matter.  But if you did not already know it was so 
would you be easily convinced that persons who claim to believe 
the Bible is inspired of God try to justify a Pope, and priests 
who can forgive sins?  People who believe and practice such 
doctrines are ordinary people like you and me.  They were 
deceived (usually from childhood) by family, friends, 
translators, and yes, men who claim to be scholars.  There are 
people today who will deceive you, and some do so intentionally.  
Brian has already charged (in the previous debate) that I just 
made this whole thing up.  He said, 
"Where has Robert come up with his theory? Out of his desperation 
to prove what he wants the Bible to say, he made it up."  

Well, either Brian lied and thought you would just believe him, 
or he has not even gone to my web site, where links of various 
sites teach what I'm teaching. 

One brother on a list adamantly affirmed that the teachings that 
I referred to with links to web sites that were not "Church of 
Christ", could not be correct because they were NOT Church of 
Christ, which is absurd.  [Sound studious brethren who have read 
Barnes Commentary (a Presbyterian) know it is rich in truth and 
highly valuable to Bible students.]  But when I provided links 
and quotes from people who were members of the church of Christ, 
who supported my view, or made a point that does, he sought other 
avenues of damage control.  (Mike Willis' exegesis of Deut 24:1-4 
will be provided later in this installment.) 

After you see that "divorce" and "put away" are not exactly the 
same thing (as many erroneously assume and assert) you will be 
amazed at how easy it is to understand Jesus' teachings that 
relate to the subject of this discussion. You will then see that 
the apostle Paul's teaching does indeed allow all able bodied 
unmarried persons (including the divorced) to have a marriage, 
and that he also commands any who would object to "let them 
marry". 

According to the Law, which was in effect when Jesus was 
teaching, when a man caught his wife in the act of committing 
adultery he did not write her a bill of divorcement, both the 
adulterers were commanded to be stoned (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22).  
Thus, unless Jesus was teaching contrary to the Law He was not 
teaching what is commonly taught today – that the only way a 
marriage may be dissolved is if the "innocent" person divorces 
the other for "fornication", which is falsely understood to be an 
adulterous sexual act with another.  This observation should make 
it easier for you to see that Jesus was not teaching that one 
cannot be freed from a marriage except he divorce his spouse 
specifically for adultery. 

Those who seek to defeat this position (as affirmed in this 
debate) are either not understanding what I have clearly stated 
or have been guilty of deliberately misrepresenting me for the 
purpose of building prejudice and confusing the issue.  Note what 
one noted writer said: 

"Let's read what Jesus said again: 

"And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual 
immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." 

"According to Robert, the verse should read: `And I say to you: 
whoever divorces his wife, except if he gives her the proper 
paperwork, and marries another, commits adultery.'" 

To confuse and misrepresent, the writer used the word "divorce" 
instead of "put away" and charged that all I am saying is that 
one just needs to do the proper paper work and any divorce is 
then ok.  At any rate, the passage needs no modification at all 
for it to be properly understood and in a way that is harmonious 
with my position on divorce and remarriage. Nevertheless, this 
might help some: 

"And I say to you: whoever separates from his/her spouse, except 
where the relationship is fornication, and marries another, 
commits adultery." 

Now, with this long introduction, and the above clarification, 
there will be no excuse if Brian makes remarks (as others have 
done) that do not properly represent what I believe. 

What was Jesus teaching? First, let us look at the two words 
found in the text of our proposition that my opponent asserts are 
"interchangeable" and mean the same thing.  There is the word 
"Apostasion", properly translated "divorce" or "divorcement".  
From the context it is abundantly clear that "apostasion" had to 
do with the legal aspect of ending a marriage, which included 
providing actual papers that would release the spouse. 

"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). 

The other pertinent word found in the context of our proposition 
is, APOLUO. Out of all the times the word is used in the KJV only 
in one instance is it translated as divorced, and that is in Matt 
5:32.  The ASV, YLT, Darby and others consistently translate 
APOLUO as "put away" rather than "divorce" in these passages. 

The standard argument against what is set forth above is that the 
"putting away" is part of the process of divorce.  Well, who 
would deny that?  The order or process, as given in the Law (Deut 
24:1-4), was to "divorce" and "put away", which is to say, "write 
her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand", and "send 
her out of his house."  Indeed, "apoluo" was part of the process 
of divorce, but IT ALONE did not result in "divorce" but was 
equal to "separation".  Therefore, if either person married 
another they would commit adultery against their spouse (Mark 
10:11). 

The idea that "put away" means "divorce" is illogical.  They are 
different words with different meanings.  Smith's Bible 
Dictionary defines divorce as: "A legal dissolution of the 
marriage relation."  It is a fact that "put away" has come to be 
used improperly, as being synonymous with divorce, but such is 
illogical, unscriptural and is the primary reason for confusion 
on the subject of divorce and remarriage. 

To illustrate the point that "put away" and "divorce" are not the 
same, consider that some men (or women) just put their spouse out 
of the house with the intention of being permanently separated, 
and do not bother with a divorce.  It could be did it because 
they had no intention of marrying another, because of 
indifference, or for various other reasons. Also, some actually 
"divorce" but do not "put away" – they keep living together. 

Below is a Scenario: John and Shay marry.  John finds another 
woman.  John "puts away" Shay.  He says to her, "Take your stuff 
and get out of the house.  You are free from me.  I'm marring 
another woman." 

What happens when he does marry this other woman?  Obviously, he 
commits adultery (Matt 19:9; Rom 7:1-4).  Why would he be 
committing adultery? It would be because he was still legally and 
scripturally married to Shay.  What would be the situation for 
the woman?  She would be on her own and could not marry according 
to law and Scripture.  Why?  It would be because she would commit 
adultery if she did, since she was still legally married.  What 
is her solution to the problem?  Get a legal and proper divorce, 
if possible. 

The above is clearly the type scenario that was addressed by 
Moses (Deut 24:1-4), and the very passage, which the Pharisees 
alluded to in their effort to entrap Jesus.  Some have asserted 
that there was never a problem among the Pharisees with men 
merely putting away their spouses.  It has been arrogantly 
asserted that no scholar has ever argued in the manner as I have 
explained above.  However, there is a conservative journal called 
"Guardian of Truth" (previously "Truth Magazine"), and in that 
journal, Mike Willis (now editor) explained Deut 24:1-4 much the 
same way as I understand it.  Of course, when this was pointed 
out on a rather large list containing several preachers, the 
first tactic of defenders of tradition was to deny that Mike said 
such a thing.  Then, when that did not work, they made comments 
to discredit Mike Willis as being a scholar.  One fellow 
dismissed Mike as being a scholar by simply saying there was 
something else he disagreed with him on.  Somehow I get the 
impression that some think a true scholar is inspired and can 
teach no error.  [Mike was not on the list but I expect that if 
he had been, his humility would have prevented him from 
personally defending himself on this issue.  Mike has many 
published works.  One book of which I'm familiar, and have in my 
library, is a commentary on Corinthians.] 

Below is what Mike Willis wrote before the "put away" verses 
"divorce" matter became an issue: 

"A reading of this passage demonstrates that Moses was trying to 
legislate in such a way as to aid the woman because of the manner 
in which man was abusing her. According to what I can understand 
was happening in the days of Moses, a man would put away his wife 
without any concern for her future. She would not be free to go 
out and marry another man and yet she could not live with her 
husband. This left her in destitute circumstances quite 
frequently. Hence, what Moses was trying to legislate was 
something that would aid women who had been put away by their 
husbands." 

"The Mosaical legislation said that if a man was going to put 
away his wife, he had to give her a bill of divorcement that 
showed that she was free from him and had the opportunity to 
remarry. Hence, it was designed to protect the women from the 
harsh treatment husbands were giving to them. You can therefore 
understand why Jesus said, "Moses because of the hardness of your 
heart suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning 
it was not so" (Matt. 19:8). Moses gave this legislation because 
of the hardness of heart which the Jews had and the manner in 
which they were treating their women. What Jesus was doing was 
reaffirming God's original pattern of one man married to one 
woman for life." Mike Willis Dayton, Ohio Truth Magazine XXIV: 
14, pp. 227-230 April 3, 1980 

Now, many will reject what I am trying to teach because it is 
against tradition.  Well, part of the foundation for my thinking 
is my understanding of Deut 24:1-4, which was the basis of the 
discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees, and it is supported 
by the "voice of tradition", Mike Willis.  

Micah 2:9 "The women of my people have ye cast out from their 
pleasant houses; from their children have ye taken away my glory 
for ever." 

Note the comments of Matthew Henry: "The women of my people have 
you cast out from their pleasant houses. They devoured widows' 
houses (Mt. 23:14), and so turned them out of the possession of 
them, because they were pleasant houses, and such as they had a 
mind for. It was inhuman to deal thus barbarously with women; but 
that which especially aggravated it was that they were the women 
of God's people, whom they knew to be under his protection. (3.) 
Of children, whose age entitles them to a tender usage: From 
their children have you taken away my glory for ever. It was the 
glory of the Israelites' children that they were free, but they 
enslaved them—that they were born in God's house, and had a right 
to the privileges of it, but they sold them to strangers, sent 
them into idolatrous countries,…" 

Do you suppose the men spoken to (Mic 2:9) had actually divorced 
those women who were God's people, according to the command given 
in Deut 24?  Of course they did not. Though the word "garish" is 
defined by Strong to include divorce it is certain that these 
women were simply cast out of their homes.  Therefore, is it 
possible that Strong erred in including "divorce" as part of the 
definition of the word "garish"; and if he did so would it not be 
equally possible that he erred by including "divorce" in his 
definition of apoluo? 

"[Heb. 1644] garash  (gaw-rash') a primitive root; to drive out 
from a possession; especially to expatriate or divorce:--cast up 
(out), divorced (woman), drive away (forth, out), expel, X surely 
put away, trouble, thrust out." 

Some have asserted that there is not a shred of evidence that the 
Pharisees (Israelites) were ever guilty of putting away their 
spouse without properly divorcing, and have demanded that I 
provide the evidence or give up my teaching.  Indeed, some have 
even praised the Pharisees in an effort to defend their own 
tradition regarding divorce and remarriage.  They have asserted 
that the Pharisees were strict to follow the Law ("so strict they 
even went beyond the Law in many things") and would never have 
been guilty of putting away their wives and not providing them 
with the divorce certificate.  Well, that is what men who have 
something to defend think. What did God say? 

Note the passages below: Jer 9:2 "Oh that I had in the wilderness 
a lodging place of wayfaring men; that I might leave my people, 
and go from them! for they be all adulterers, an assembly of 
treacherous men." Jer 23:10 "For the land is full of adulterers; 
for because of swearing the land mourneth; the pleasant places of 
the wilderness are dried up, and their course is evil, and their 
force is not right." 

The passage below is very important because it emphasizes the 
importance of the "bill of divorcement" and teaches us that until 
there is an actual legal divorce (with the papers) there is still 
hope for reconciliation.  It also clearly illustrates that "put 
away" does not mean "divorce". 

Isa 50:1 – "Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your 
mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my 
creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your 
iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions 
is your mother put away." 

Evidently God did not deal treacherously with Israel by simply 
putting her away and leaving it at that.  There was a 
"separation" but no divorce at this point, as was evidently the 
case in the following passage: Mal 2:14, 15 "Yet ye say, 
Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and 
the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt 
treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy 
covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the 
spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. 
Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal 
treacherously against the wife of his youth." 

The word translated "divorcement" is "kariythuwth," which STRONG 
defines as: "divorce, dismissal, divorcement". 

JFB – "HORSLEY best explains (as the antithesis between `I' and 
`yourselves' shows, though LOWTH translates, `Ye are sold') I 
have never given your mother a regular bill of divorcement; I 
have merely `put her away' for a time, and can, therefore, by 
right as her husband still take her back on her submission; I 
have not made you, the children, over to any `creditor' to 
satisfy a debt; I therefore still have the right of a father over 
you, and can take you back on repentance, though as rebellious 
children you have sold yourselves to sin and its penalty (1Ki 
21:25 )." 

The explanation (above) of the text is consistent with Deut 24:1-
4.  "Put away" did not mean "divorce".  It meant "separation". 
Deut 24:1-4 Moses said to write the bill of divorce and "send her 
away" (shalach).  It is important to note that STRONG nowhere 
mentions divorce in his definition of "shalach".  This should not 
be surprising because in the passages where "shalach" is used it 
is understood from the context to be something different from 
divorce, where papers were issued.  It is very significant that 
Jesus dealt with the very same matter in His discourse with the 
Pharisees (Matt 19). Thus, it is prudent to conclude that where 
Jesus used the word "apoluo" in his response to the Pharisees, in 
reference to the Deut 24:1-4 scenario, that it should NOT be 
translated "divorce".  Furthermore, there is no reason for any 
"authority" to have included "divorce" as a definition of 
"apoluo", as used in Matt 19:9, because there is a word, which we 
have already studied, that without question means "divorce" and 
"put away", when studied in light of the contexts in which is it 
used, means nothing more than what it says.  Again, divorce is 
the word to use to properly communicate the "ending of a marriage 
by an official decision in a court of law" (Encarta Dictionary). 

It is strange that those who argue that apoluo and divorce mean 
the same thing do not speak that way in daily discussions.  They 
speak in such a way as to be understood.  If they are discussing 
the matter of a church member being "separated", that is the term 
they use – not "divorced".  However, if they are talking about 
someone haven gotten a divorce they use that exact term – 
divorce, not separated or "put away".  But in their writings they 
DELIBERATELY use the word "put away" in the place of "divorce" 
because they need it to mean the same. 

If we had not been led to assume that "apoluo" (put away) means 
the same thing as "divorce", because of traditional teachings 
that goes back even before the writing of the KJV, the teachings 
of Jesus (Matt 19:9; 5:32) would not be such a problem.  But 
because of the misinformation and misunderstanding, many have 
drawn a conclusion that is hermeneutically unsound. (On the 
matter of hermeneutics see my article at the following page: 
 hermeneutics article) 

The KJV scholars erred by not being consistent in translating 
"apoluo" as "put away", in the teachings of Jesus in the texts 
noted above.  This may explain why some authorities have added 
"divorced" to their definition of the Greek word "apoluo", as 
found in Matt 5:32. Why, after all, the KJV so translated it. 

Usage of the word "Apoluo": 

KJV (146) - forgive, 47; forsake, 6; leave, 52; let, 8; let 
alone, 6; misc, 13; suffer, 14 

The Greek word "apostasion" is translated "divorcement" and found 
3 times in the KJV - all are in the gospels and legal divorce is 
the implication. [Mt5:31; Mt19:7; Mr10:4] Note the significant 
difference in the KJV and ASV in the translation of Matt 5:32: 

"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, 
saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit 
adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is DIVORCED (apoluo) 
committeth adultery." (KJV) 

"But I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, 
saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: 
and whosoever shall marry her when she is PUT AWAY (apoluo) 
committeth adultery." (ASV) 

Do you see it? The word "divorced" is found in the KJV as the 
meaning for APOLUO.  That error alone has no doubt contributed 
greatly to the confusion regarding "put away" and "divorce". How 
many times have you heard teachers say that Jesus taught that a 
"divorced" person commits adultery if they marry? That is not 
what He said.  He said a "put away" or "separated" person commits 
adultery if they marry, and it makes perfect sense. 

Have you ever noticed that in the KJV there is no instance of an 
apostle's words being translated as "divorce", "divorced" "bill 
of divorcement" etc?  (However, as already discussed, "loosed" 
(LUSIS, 1 Cor 7:27,28) refers to and applies to those who have 
been divorced.) They simply did not specifically and plainly 
address the matter of divorce.  Nevertheless, in an effort to 
explain the apostles' teachings to conform to their idea of what 
Jesus taught, many assert that "chorizo" (rendered as "depart", 1 
Cor. 7:11) means "divorce".  It does not.  However, it is 
something that may be involved in the process of divorce.  Note 
STRONG'S definition: 

"from 5561; to place room between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go 
away:--depart, put asunder, separate." 

Words sometimes only partially communicate and leave room for 
speculation, theory and conjecture.  Below is an example: 

I met an old friend a few months ago that I had not seen in over 
20 years.  I knew she had married a doctor but did not know 
anything about him.  She said to me, "I had to get rid of him".  
Now, "get rid of" could be interpreted in various ways.  It could 
mean she divorced him, it could mean she just told him IT IS OVER 
– We are THROUGH, and moved out, or sent him out; or she could 
have killed him.  If she had wanted to clearly communicate the 
idea that she had divorced her husband she could certainly have 
used the word "divorced", or even said, "I gave him his walking 
papers", but since she did not I cannot be absolutely certain 
what she meant.  There is a remote possibility that the man she 
married was already married when he married her or that he was a 
first cousin, both of which would have made the marriage 
illegal.  Thus, in such case she would not have needed to do 
anything more than "put him away", which was to end the 
relationship by permanent separation. 

Was God not being clear when He inspired writers to use certain 
words that mean "put away", "send away" etc.?  Did He want us to 
conclude that they had, in every case, actually divorced their 
wife?  Some may have incorrectly used the same native language to 
mean "divorce," but that is not what God said.  When God gave 
important legislation regarding divorce he made it clear.  In 
both the O.T. (Deut 24:1-4) and the N.T. (Matt 19:7-9) there is 
the allusion to actual papers ("bill of divorce") when divorce 
(noun) is under consideration. But of course when God said "he 
may not put her away all his days" (Deut. 22:29) common sense 
dictates that the command disallowed a divorce because "put away" 
was involved in "divorce".  It just makes sense that if you are 
told to not "put away" you are being told you cannot divorce, 
although they are not the same thing. 

If my friend had said, "I divorced him" or I gave him his 
"walking papers", then I would have understood for certain that 
an actual divorce had taken place. As she worded it, all I knew 
for certain was that they did not have a good relationship. 

(Ezra 10:19) "And they gave their promise that they would put 
away (yatsa' H3318) their wives; and being guilty, they presented 
a ram of the flock as their trespass offering." NKJV 

It is worthy of note that in the text there was no indication 
that the priests did anything other than "put away" or separate 
from their foreign wives according to the will of God.  They did 
not need to actually divorce them because these were women that 
they should never have married – women who God had said they 
could not marry.  Thus, they were committing sin in living with 
these women, which is the same type of thing as "fornication" 
(porneia), which includes "incest", according to STRONG.  The 
fact that they did not formally divorce their wives is in perfect 
harmony with Jesus' "exception" – "except for fornication", i.e., 
the "putting away" and marrying another would not result in 
adultery being committed. 

Jeremiah 3:1) "They say, `If a man put away (shalach H7971) his 
wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he 
return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? 
but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return 
again to me,' saith the LORD." 

In the above passage, the word "They" was doubtless a reference 
to the Jews who had come to misunderstand and misuse Deut 24-1-
4.  (This will become evident when you understand the message of 
the text.)  In Deut 24 the husband was forbidden to take back a 
wife to whom he had actually given a "bill of divorce" if she had 
married another.  He was not forbidden to take back a woman who 
he had been "put away" or merely sent out of the house, as we 
have seen from Isaiah 50:1, though it seems apparent from the 
text (Jer 3:1) that such had become the thinking of the people.  
God said, Regardless of this erroneous thinking I will take you 
back.  He was saying, we have been separated and you have played 
the harlot, nevertheless, I will take you back. 

Was God asserting that he would do something that was against the 
Law, and therefore would mess up the paradigm he had given? 

Jeremiah 3:8 ) "And I saw, when for all the causes whereby 
backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away (shalach 
H7971), and given her a bill of divorce (keriythuwth H3748); yet 
her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the 
harlot also." 

After alluding to the fact that he had been previously dispatched 
to plead for Israel's return during the separation, Jeremiah 
stated that God had "given her [Israel] a bill or certificate of 
divorce", thus dissolving the marriage and relieving God of any 
responsibility to Israel as his "chosen" or as his "wife" who He 
had married (Jer3:14).  In verse 14 we see where the Lord had 
told Jeremiah to plead with his "back sliding" "wife" to return 
and he would take her back.  If we go back and consider verse 12 
there should be no doubt that Jeremiah was talking about what he 
had been told to say BEFORE the divorce had actually been given. 

(Ezekiel 44:22) "Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, 
nor her that is put away (garash H1644): but they shall take 
maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a 
priest before."  The NKJV says, "driven out" instead of "put 
away". 

The command to the priests allowed them to only marry a virgin or 
a widow of another priest.  If the priests had obeyed the command 
it would have assured that the priests did not marry one who 
could possibly be still married to another.  The above passage 
may be an indication that there were misunderstandings among the 
Jews regarding what was an acceptable divorce.  Marrying a virgin 
or the widow of another priest assured that the woman had no 
legal ties to another, and when you consider what their 
responsibilities were, it is understandable that God would 
require such of these men. 

(Mat 1:19) "Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and 
did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to 
put her away (apoluo G630) quietly." NIV 

The above passage has been used by disputants on both sides of 
the issue presently being debated.  The discussion I had with one 
noted brother turned out to be interesting.  His promise to cause 
my teachings to crumble…did not materialize.  There are two 
articles on my web site that you may read.  Brian can respond to 
them if he likes. 
Joseph and Mary
Joseph & Mary-Divorce/Put Away 

Studying The Context of Jesus' Teachings 

(Mt 19:3) - "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and 
saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away (apoluo) his 
wife for every cause? 

In their effort to test or try to trick the Christ in a matter of 
Law the Pharisees begin by talking about "putting away" a wife.  
But, after Jesus answers them they then switch to the matter of 
"divorce". 

It should be observed that Christ answered their question in 
accordance with the Law. A "put away" wife without a "bill of 
divorcement" was merely "separated" from her husband, and 
therefore still married.  Then the Pharisees change the subject 
to divorce. In verse 8 he answers their question. Then, in verse 
9, he teaches more about the "putting away". 

The Pharisees evidently had two motives: 1) To pit Jesus against 
Moses and thus charge him with sin; and 2) To cause Jesus to 
takes sides on the controversial divorce issue, which had been 
raging among the two main parties of rabbis: the Shammaites and 
the Hillelites for about a century. 

Jesus' Reply: 4  "And he answered and said unto them, `Have ye 
not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male 
and female', 5 And said, `For this cause shall a man leave father 
and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be 
one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. 
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put 
asunder." 

What was the answer the Pharisees were seeking in response to 
their question? They would have been satisfied with either "yes" 
or "no" to their question, but Jesus perceived their intentions 
and did not respond as they had hoped. Thus, they failed in their 
effort to cause Jesus to take sides on the issue that so divided 
the Jews. Jesus answered by simply teaching truth from the Law 
that no one could deny. 

Thus, the Pharisees heard and understood Jesus' teaching 
regarding the oneness of husband and wife, as taught from the 
beginning, but they interjected the Law in hopes of confusing the 
issue they had brought up.  They asked: 

(Mat 19:7) "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of 
divorce (apostasion G647), and to put her away (apoluo G630)?"  
NKJV 

It seems apparent that the Pharisees had Deut 24:3 in mind. Their 
question was, why did God, through Moses, give a command 
regarding divorce if He is really opposed to divorce?  Jesus had 
already presented the truth about God's intention for a man and 
woman to marry, and stay married to each other for life, by 
quoting from Gen 1:27 and 2:24.  But the Pharisees did not give 
up; their next thought was to try to provoke a response from 
Jesus that could be used against him. 

Jesus answered: (Mat 19:8) "Moses, because of the hardness of 
your hearts, permitted you to put away (apoluo G630) your wives, 
but from the beginning it was not so." NKJV 

In studying Deut 24:1-4, we have seen that those who were impure 
in heart and determined to end the relationship with their wives 
were "commanded" to divorce, rather than merely send away their 
wive's.  Therefore, Jesus was not saying Moses allowed the Jews 
to merely "put away" or separate and marry another.  Moses 
"suffered" or allowed the men to send away their wives AFTER the 
divorce (verse 3). 

It is important to note that men were commonly putting away their 
wives without the benefit of legal papers (the  divorcement"). 
Therefore, the women were still actually married to them.  This 
meant that they could not marry another without committing 
adultery.  This is the reason Moses commanded: "…Let him write 
her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her 
out of his house."  These legal papers allowed her to "go and be 
another man's wife." 

With these thoughts before us let us now examine Jesus' next 
statement: 

(Mat 19:9) "And I say to you, whoever puts away (apoluo G630) his 
wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits 
adultery; and whoever marries her who is put away (apoluo G630) 
commits adultery." NKJV 

Evidently Jesus goes back to their original question regarding 
"putting away", because he makes no mention of divorce 
(apostasion).  He says, if you separate and marry another you are 
going to be committing adultery, but he does provide an exception 
-"except for sexual immorality" (porneia).  Now, what does that 
mean?  First, the way it is commonly applied today is that if 
your spouse commits adultery you may divorce him/her.  But that 
is not what Jesus said.  Under the Law there was no provision for 
divorce for adultery.  The Law was that both the adulterers would 
be put to death.  So, are we to conclude that Jesus was teaching 
us that we can divorce our spouse for anything that we consider 
to be "sexual immorality"?  If such is the case then the 
traditional rules have to change a bit to include "adultery...in 
heart heart", pornography, etc.  The "exception clause" was not 
intended as a reason for divorcing a legal spouse.  What I think 
Jesus was saying was that if you merely separate and marry 
another you commit adultery UNLESS you are separating from your 
spouse because of fornication ("porneia").  The only examples we 
have in the New Testament where a marriage is spoken of as 
"unlawful", or for which action needed to be taken, is the case 
of Herod and Herodias (Matt 4:14), and the man who "had his 
father's wife" (1Cor 5:1); and in both cases the relationship was 
"sexual immorality" ("porneia").  All they needed to do was end 
the relationship. They could end the relationship and both marry 
another yet not commit adultery.  Also, any unmarried person who 
would marry either of the ones who separated would not commit 
adultery.  Why?  Because they were not legally obligated and were 
thus not "bound". 

In view of the passages we have studied thus far which of the 
following makes more sense: 1) That sending away (apoluo) a 
spouse and marrying another results in adultery because apoluo 
was equal to separation;  or 2) That divorcing (apostasion, which 
ends a marriage) and marrying another results in adultery. 

Remember, adultery is a sin against the spouse (Mark 10:11).  If 
divorce ends a marriage, and it obviously does, then one who is 
divorced cannot commit adultery by marrying.  Since the passage 
(Matt 19:9) that is used to condemn a divorced person who marries 
has to be interpreted to mean "he commits adultery if he 
marries", for required celibacy to be seen as biblical, then if 
the divorced person does not commit adultery by marrying, the 
passage is completely misapplied.  Therefore, the idea that a 
lawful marriage between a man and wife should be required to end 
is without any foundation whatsoever. 

The statement in verse 9, where we find the controversial 
"exception clause", apparently provoked the response recorded in 
the next passage: 

Verse 10. "…If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not 
good to marry. " 

What is stated here gives us no reason to conclude that the 
disciples understood Jesus to teach that one legally divorced 
commits adultery when they marry if they did not initiate the 
divorce because of unfaithfulness. 

What is the "case" the disciples had in mind? Evidently it was a 
situation where the marriage would not be legal. That this is the 
correct understanding is likely because of the phrase "it is not 
good to marry". A legal marriage is "good", as stated in both the 
Old and New Testaments. Certainly the disciples did not question 
Jesus' teachings here. They simply stated a fact that was based 
upon what Jesus had just said. 

Jesus' reply: Verse 11. "…All men cannot receive this saying, 
save they to whom it is given. " 

What saying was Jesus referring to? Was it that He had taught one 
must remain celibate if one's spouse divorced him/her? No. His 
comment was a response to their statement that it would be better 
to not marry if the marriage was not going to be legal and 
acceptable to God. Such would certainly be the case because there 
was nothing to gain from marrying someone if fornication would be 
committed. 

Why was it that all men could not receive the saying? First, 
Jesus dealt with the "saying" from the standpoint of whether 
marriage itself is something one should avoid.  Celibacy, is 
difficult to "receive" or practice. It is important to note that 
according to the inspired apostle, some men cannot practice 
celibacy, and because of that he gave instruction to, "let them 
marry".  [1Co 7:7 "For I would that all men were even as I 
myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this 
manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the 
unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as 
I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better 
to marry than to burn."] 

Jesus explained who can practice celibacy: 

Verse 12. " For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from 
their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made 
eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves 
eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to 
receive it, let him receive it." 

Those who are eunuchs, having not the capability to have sex, 
certainly would have no problem with not marrying. They would 
have no problem accepting the "saying".  Eunuchs would be able to 
receive it and should be allowed to receive it, but let us not be 
guilty of going against the clear teaching of the inspired 
apostle by requiring celibacy for people who want and need 
marriage. 

Conclusion: 

The above exegesis of Matt 19:2-12 is logical, scriptural, 
hermeneutically sound and allows for Jesus, His apostles, and His 
disciples, to be seen as fair and just. All should be able to 
accept the teaching in this installment because the original 
teaching of God on marriage is respected, there is no need for 
families to be busted up (if their marriage is legal), and 
"DIVORCED" persons, innocent of sin or not, need not remain 
celibate. The practice of requiring celibacy is something that 
is contrary to the very reason given for marriage (1Cor7:2). 

Divorce is not specifically and clearly authorized in the New 
Testament, but because marriage is dissolvable (contrary to 
Catholic decree), if done legally, those who have been through an 
unfortunate marriage and divorce are not still bound to a 
previous relationship. 

When a divorce takes place, one or both parties may have been 
guilty of sin, but the sin(s) may be forgiven (1 Cor 6:11). The 
last thing we should want is to see one who is disheartened, 
because of a divorce, being placed in a position that makes 
his/her endeavor to live the Christian life even more difficult 
(1Cor7:2).  That God does not require the divorced to be punished 
is true because there is no evidence of it.  A passage has been 
misconstrued to teach that if one does not keep his marital vows 
he must remain celibate, but the argument fails when it is 
pointed out that their theory has no consistency unless persons 
divorced but innocent of sin ALSO be required to be punished.  
God has never made a law that requires innocent persons to be 
punished for the sins of another; therefore Brian's position is 
not compatible with the nature of God; and for that reason, among 
others, it must therefore be rejected. 

Brotherly, Robert Waters