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

The short of my reply is that Robert tries (unsuccessfully) to 
prove two things. 1. That apoluo means separation, which he gives 
not one iota of evidence to back up. And 2. That Deuteronomy 
24:1-4 is protecting a woman whose husband would only separate 
from her, by making him give her a divorce allowing her to 
remarry. The only problem with this is the separation theory is 
found in Robert's mind but not in the Bible. Deuteronomy 24 only 
speaks of divorce. 

The rest of his lengthy article gives no other evidence, but 
bounces off of these two misconceptions. Robert said this was his 
entire affirmation.  I hope not, for he hasn't given evidence to 
prove anything yet.  I could stop here, and probably should, for 
the preceding paragraph answers his post. But for those who wish 
to read on, I did answer more specifically some of Robert's 
points below.

The lengthier reply

Robert begins his debate with an essay on the traditional view of 
MDR, as he calls it. His first several paragraphs have nothing of 
substance to deal with, so I will not take up space with them. In 
trying to say that taking the view that telling someone a second 
marriage after a divorce for reasons other than adultery places 
burdens on people, Robert asks me the following question:

"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?"

My answer: What if the two were living together, separated from 
their spouses and not married to one another, and they had 
children? Would you then say they had to quit living in adultery? 
I have known people in that very situation. It is the same 
principle here. If they are living in adultery, God sees them as 
living together. He has not joined them together.

What if one was teaching a thief who had a large bank account of 
money he had stolen? Would he be required by God to repent and 
make amends as he could?  Would that change of economic lifestyle 
be a burden?   

Whatever we have to sacrifice and change in our lives, is it not 
worth heaven in the end. What was Jesus saying? Was he saying 
that becoming a Christian and dealing with the consequences of 
our past sins is easy? No. In Matthew 16, he said we have to 
count the cost of becoming a Christian. Jesus is saying that he 
will forgive our sins, and his requirements are not grievous. If 
I really want to go to heaven, I'll do whatever it takes, for the 
end result is well worth it. But some of the things I have to 
change in my life may be difficult, and may be the first test as 
to whether serving Christ is my priority over all else.

Robert then tries to continue arguing a position of which he 
failed to prove or defend during the last debate. He adds an 
argument stating that 
"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." 

Robert does not realize that God is not punishing the innocent 
party. But sometimes circumstances that result from someone 
else's sins are negative circumstance. When a drunk driver 
disables an innocent person, God is not punishing the innocent, 
but the consequences of the other's sin has negative 
ramifications. But another point to consider. Why is being single 
punishment? Were Paul and Jesus being punished for being single?

Robert continues trying to make old arguments which failed in the 
last debate. One argument he tries to define is as follows: 

"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." 

Again, Robert fails to realize that the person divorced 
unscripturally is not unmarried in God's eyes. They are married. 
Else they could not commit adultery (a sexual sin committed by 
one married to someone else). Therefore, Robert's argument falls 
flat.

Since Robert has not yet gotten around to his subject, let me 
answer a few of his erroneous statements in some of the articles 
he writes here.

Robert writes: 
"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."

Brian replies: God did not divorce and marry another. Israel, to 
whom God was married through the Old Law, divided into two 
sections, Judah and Israel, but together the wife of God through 
the covenant given to them. When Israel sinned and would not 
repent over hundreds of years, God allowed them to be taken into 
captivity, never to return. But he was still married to the other 
part of the children of Israel, Judah. This was not a new wife. 
God did not marry, divorce, and remarry. Later, when Jesus died 
on the cross, that Old Law died and the marriage of God to Israel 
ended because of death, now allowing Israel to become part of the 
church, living under the new covenant, if they chose and became 
the bride of Christ, without committing adultery. They could not 
have done that while married to God through the Old Law. This is 
what Paul speaks of in Romans 7.

Then Robert finally gets to the proposal.
"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'". 

Now notice Robert's argument (and this is the only one he makes, 
but gives no valid proof): 
1. "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"."

My reply, where is the proof that APOLUO should not have been 
translated divorce. Robert, you are suppose to prove your 
argument here, not just make it.

Robert then says: 
"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."

My reply, But Robert, you have not shown that yet. At this point 
all I must do it show a proper translation for APOLUO is to 
divorce, and that is simple to do when I get to my affirmations.

Robert says: 
"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."

My reply: Robert, do you see your contradictions. If as you state 
Jesus said the same thing as the Old Law written by Moses (which 
is false), and if as you state the Old Law commanded stoning for 
the one caught in adultery (which is true), then is Jesus 
commanding we stone those who commit adultery? You ought to see 
by your own argument how Jesus did not say the same thing Moses 
did. Jesus was giving a new and different law. 

Robert states Apostasion is the legal aspect of ending a 
marriage, while APOLUO simply means a separation. It is 
interesting that Robert synonymously uses the phrase "ending a 
marriage" to refer to divorce. Robert needs to prove that APOLUO, 
put away, is not also synonymous for divorce. The greek scholars 
seem to think it is.  Plus he needs to prove Apoluo can simply 
mean a separation, which he has not shown.

Robert states, 
“"apoluo" was part of the process of divorce, but IT ALONE did 
not result in "divorce" but was equal to "separation"." 

My reply. Prove it. Here is where you must give your proof. 
Robert's entire argument is built on his theory that APOLUO means 
separation. But he has yet to prove that. He has yet to give any 
evidence to support his theory.

Robert gives a quote on Deuteronomy 24 from a Mike Willis who 
states, 
"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." 

My reply to this: Where does Mr. Willis get this from? He makes 
it sound as if an organized society had been doing this for year. 
The law had only been given 40 years previous to Moses writing 
this, and these people had been wandering in the wilderness most 
if not all of their lives. This was a new nation with a new law. 
There is no evidence Moses is correcting anything. Instead, Moses 
is creating law under God's inspiration. In fact, Deuteronomy 
24:1-4 does not even mention 'putting away' nor is Apoluo used as 
it is a greek word. This is a straw argument; a poor attempt to 
prove something that is not even in that text.

Robert quoting Mr. Willis goes on to say, 
"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." 

My reply, no it doesn't say that. It simply states if a woman 
does not find favor in her husband eyes, he can write her a bill 
of divorcement. Nothing is mentioned about anything else. All 
that Mr. Willis and Robert write is pure conjecture with no 
evidence.

Robert says, 
"Now, many will reject what I am trying to teach because it is 
against tradition."

My reply, Robert, I reject what you say because it is against 
scripture. I care not what tradition says. I care much what 
scripture says.

Robert has created his own tradition, apart from scriptures, and 
then tried to make unrelated scripture fit his theory and 
tradition to support what he believes. The problem is, his basis 
in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 simply does not exist, so his next step of 
logic falls flat on its face.

Robert then states Isaiah 50:1 shows a divorce paper and putting 
away are two different things (one being a divorce and one being 
a separation). Robert, I would ask someone, are you divorced? 
They answer yes. Show me your divorce papers. That is exactly 
what is being discussed in Isaiah 50:1. In fact, this passage 
shows the putting away is divorce. But again, we are not 
discussing apoluo which is the issue in this debate.

Robert says, 
"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"."

My reply, Robert, perhaps that is because separated and put away 
are not the same thing, but put away and divorce are. You are 
using circular reasoning here, which is flawed.

Robert states, 
"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."

My reply, only if they use your definition of Apoluo, which has 
no basis. If put away and divorce refer to the same thing, then 
using them interchangeably would be very consistent. 

Robert asks, 
"Was God not being clear when He inspired writers to use certain 
words that mean "put away", "send away" etc.?"

My reply. Very clear. He was speaking of divorce. He would have 
used the word for separation if that is what he meant.

Robert writes:
"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."

Brian replies, Actually Robert, there is every indication they 
had married unlawfully and had to divorce their spouses. Even you 
Robert, stated that in our last debate. They divorced, or another 
way of saying that is that they put away their wives.

Robert says
(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." 

Robert makes the point that they hadn't divorced their wives, 
just separated. But notice. 1) She became another man's wife (she 
was divorced). 2) her ex-husband could not take her back because 
they had divorced. In this passage it is again clear put away 
meant divorce.

Robert quotes God as saying: 
"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." 

Brian here: I like that quote because God is using divorce and 
put away in the same sentence, obviously meaning the same thing. 
Robert can't or won't see that.

Robert says:
"(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."

Brian says, Again Robert, you misapply the passage. The priests 
were on a higher order than the rest of the Israelites. God did 
not allow them to marry women who are divorced. Perhaps there is 
a type/antitype here. Christians are priests and the same applies 
to us.

Robert quotes:
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 

Brian replies, Robert, you need to understand engagements in the 
first century. A legal contract was entered from which one had to 
go through a legal process to break. It was a divorce. That's 
exactly what Joseph was going to quietly do.

Robert then states he will 
"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?"

Brian here: As I stated in the last debate, if they are going 
back to Deuteronomy 24, which Robert contends they are, then they 
must be speaking of divorce, because that is all Deuteronomy 24 
speaks of. Robert would have the Pharisees asking about 
separation, then switching to divorce, then Jesus answering about 
separation. How convoluted. Actually the Pharisees ask about 
divorce, try to prove their case, and Jesus answers concerning 
divorce. How simple when we just read what God says.

Robert says
(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?"


Brian replies, Good job Robert. They are speaking of divorce 
which is all Deut 24 speaks of. That is what they speak of the 
entire way through Matthew 19:1-12. Apoluo is the divorce caused 
by the legal certificate. 

Robert continues
(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 
wives."

Brian replies: And here we see the major flaw in Robert argument. 
Robert sees things the Bible does not say.  All Deut 24 speaks of 
is divorce. Separation is not part of that. The fact Jesus speaks 
of putting away in reference to Deut 24 shows it is the same as 
divorce.

Robert states, 
"It is important to note that men were commonly putting away 
their wives without the benefit of legal papers (the  
divorcement")." 

Brian replies, Prove it. This is just a straw man with no 
evidence behind it.

Robert then quotes 
(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)."

Brian replies, Not based on what the Bible says. Only if I want 
to accept Robert's theory and definition with no proof behind it 
can we make that application. Jesus and the Pharisees are 
speaking of divorce the entire way through this passage, because 
clearly that is what apoluo refers to.

Robert used the example of Herod, 
"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."

Brian replies, actually Herod and Herodias were married by the 
laws of the land, but not according to God. Herod had no right to 
marry his brother's wife. He could not have married her if they 
had not divorced. Yes, it was an unscriptural marriage, but the 
divorce was also there.

Robert concludes:
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. 

Brian replies, the first conclusion has not evidence behind it 
except what is in Robert's mind. The second is not totally true, 
because simply divorcing may not end the marriage that God joined 
together.  God is the judge, not man.

Robert says
"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."

Brian Replies, 
1)Adultery is not just a sin against the spouse.  Adultery is a 
sexual act by a married person with a person they are not married 
to.  2) Divorce may end a marriage in man's eyes, but man does 
not join the marriage together to begin with, God does.  Divorce 
does not end the marriage in God's eyes.  Therefore a resulting 
relationship is adultery.  So, yes, if a person received an 
unscriptural divorce, then the individual must remain celibate or 
be guilty of adultery.

Robert states, 
"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."

Brian here. 
Sure it does. The old law allowed divorce for any reason. What 
Jesus taught was different, and that was why the disciples 
reacted as they did. Jesus was changing what the Old Law stated. 
We looked at that in the last debate. 

Robert, your plan to state your entire case has failed. You have 
given no proof yet for your case.  Perhaps this is because none 
exists.  But you have two more tries.  Enjoy.

Brian Galloway