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:  Any links given in this debate will open in a 
separate browser window. 

I consider it a pleasure to debate this issue with Brian 
Galloway, and I shall endeavor to affirm the proposition as noted 
above.

In my first installment, I stated that I was including every 
argument I had at the time. However, in my ongoing study, I have 
uncovered further evidence that convinces of the truth of the 
above proposition: Josephus is one source that will be referenced 
in this installment. But first let us note brother Galloway's 
reply:

"The short of my reply is that Robert tries….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."

Brethren, my proposition can be affirmed very easily. I'm not 
sure that I need to do anything more than show from the 
scriptures that there is a difference in "separating" and 
"divorcing" because Brian's evidently does not recognize that 
there is a difference.  Furthermore, in virtually all Biblical 
references to a man and woman separating Brian evidently 
attributes the word to DIVORCE and he asserts that the passage is 
talking about divorce, but an intelligent student will perceive 
that he is being irrational. So, Brian, is it ok to permanently 
separate, so long as you do not divorce? Is there no teaching in 
the Bible against such separation?

Of course, if you read my first affirmative you should already 
know that I presented poof, which Brian rejects. But just in case 
you missed it, here is a reminder:

In my first installment I provided a link to my article regarding
Paul's teachings in 1 Cor 7:10, 11.
celibacy article
I said it was up to Brian to respond to it or not. He did not, 
and I think I understand why. Brian has likely relied heavily on 
the above passage when his proof-text from the gospels is 
challenged.  But what is interesting is that the very word that 
is claimed to mean "divorce" is CORIZO and it means "SEPARATION". 
Brian says "put away" (apoluo) does not mean separation. Well, if 
you put your wife away (APOLUO) from you then you are "separated" 
from her regardless of what is given as the definition of apoluo. 
Thus, when one merely puts away his wife, who he is then 
separated from, and marries another, he commits adultery against 
her. Of course, one can separate "with consent for a time" (1 Cor 
7:5) and it is not anything sinful, according Paul.

In any languages, a word can take on a variety of meaning and the 
meaning has to be determined by the context. For example, in 
English, the word "one" has numerous meanings to include: single 
thing or unit; unique, doing something at the same time or in the 
same way; etc. The meaning that applies depends on how the word 
is used. Hence, it is not surprising that people err by applying 
the wrong definition to a word in a particular context. This is 
what I believe many have done in the matter of MDR, namely 
regarding the Greek word APOLUO.

Let us again note an example that I gave (which Brian failed to 
respond to) that illustrates how people can be unclear and which 
also illustrates how people could have come to speak of "put 
away" as being the same as divorce:

"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."

Brian has asserted that APOLUO, usually translated "put away", 
means the same thing as "Apostasion", which is properly 
translated "divorce" or "divorcement". Well, if that is the way 
you have seen it used, and used it over the years, then that is 
what it means to you. But we should only be concerned with what 
it means in the text of Jesus' teachings as it relates to my 
proposition. In the previous debate I showed that Jesus could not 
possibly have changed the law. If APOLUO means divorce, as Jesus 
used it, then He taught something that indicated that many 
people's marriages were adulterous and that they must break up 
their marriage and live single, even though the Law of God 
(Moses' Law) allowed it. The fact that the Jews never made the 
charge that Jesus was changing the Law regarding marrying after a 
divorce, even at His trial before the Sanhedrin and before 
Pilate, is strong evidence that Jesus never transgressed the Law 
on divorce and remarriage by flatly contradicting it. The fact 
that Brian continues to make the charge that Jesus did flatly 
contradict the Law is indicative of his desperation to prove his 
teachings and practices on divorce and remarriage.

In his reply to my affirmative, Brian says APOLUO does not mean 
"separate". Is this not an indication that Brian is willing to 
say anything to defend his position? I think it is, because 
within the word that is used for divorce, (which he says is the 
meaning of APOLUO) APOSTASION, is the meaning, "something 
separative". (See below.)

"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).

Also, let us note Bagster on the meaning of APOLUO and Smith on 
the meaning of DIVORCE:

"Apoluo. Put away: To let go; to let loose; to send away" 
(Bagster's Analytical Lexicon)

Smith's Bible Dictionary defines divorce as: "A legal dissolution 
of the marriage relation."

Brian's "lengthier reply":

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 what 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.

rw:
There is never a reason or justification for committing adultery,
which incidentally required the death penalty at the time you say
Jesus said it was a reason for divorce. However, Brian's position
results in people being taught that they are in adultery when 
they are not. At any rate, I'm glad Brian presented the example 
of separating and playing house with another without first 
getting a legal divorce. He has asserted that there is no 
evidence that the Bible deals with such a scenario. Brian's 
illustration indicates he see the real life situation of 
separation without divorce, but that he has charged that God has 
not only not condemned the practice, but says nothing about such 
cases is very strange. The point Brian tries to make is that even 
in legitimate cases it is sometimes burdensome to repent of sin. 
Repenting of sin is essential to becoming a Christian, but 
Brian's example here in no way helps to justify his practice of 
imposing celibacy on people who have no marriage and who need 
marriage to "avoid fornication" (1 Cor 7:2).

His practice is not scriptural and it is a huge burden. Brian's
doctrine makes Christ's "yoke" HARD and HEAVY and repentance has
NOTHING to do with it.

Brian continues:
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?

rw
Brian, the man could overcome the problem you speak of that was 
due to his having stolen money from another. If you want a true
comparison to your teaching and practice on requiring celibacy 
the man would have to be forbidden by the Lord to ever again have 
the economic lifestyle that he had. Such cannot be proven and it 
cannot be proven that God requires persons who have no marriage 
to remain celibate.

Brian wrote:
"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."

rw
Brian has made a statement that indicates that he thinks celibacy 
is a consequence of divorce. Let's talk about consequences. If 
you ignore the law and take another person's life without just 
reason, the consequence, if you get caught, is imprisonment or 
death. If an unmarried man decides that he wants to be a eunuch 
and has himself castrated then the consequence would be that he 
would no longer be fit for marriage. But when someone unjustly 
divorces you and marries, celibacy for you is NOT the consequence 
unless the law of man or God says so, but in both cases, at least 
in our country, it does not. The consequence is that you are now 
"unmarried" (1 Cor 7:8,9) and the one who unjustly divorced you 
will have to deal with God for the treacherous behavior. God 
never made a law that requires the punishment of an innocent 
person. Brian's assertion that celibacy is a "consequence" is 
only a factor when someone allows themselves to be deceived into 
breaking up their marriage or living alone. Thus, there is no 
consequence at all unless he can prove that God demands celibacy. 
Not only has God not demanded celibacy, He has called the 
practice "doctrines of devils" (1 Tim 4:1-3).

Brian wrote:
"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?"

rw
Brian attempts to convince the reader that God is not punishing 
the innocent party in a divorce by requiring celibacy, but his 
question "Why is being single punishment?" is indication that he 
may not really believe his own arguments.

Let us deal with Brian's last two questions. First, being single 
is not punishment, but requiring someone to be single, because of 
something that happened, before they can be considered in good 
standing in the church is punishment. The question is, is it JUST
punishment and does God require it? Obviously it is not just to
require celibacy of one who was innocent of sin but whose spouse
divorced him/her. And obviously God is just, which means Brian's
doctrine, which requires celibacy for even persons innocent of
marital sin, is error. Note 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."

Brian asked, 
"Were Paul and Jesus being punished for being single?"

This is a nonsensical question. The answer is "no", they chose to
be single and there was nothing done to either of them because of
their choice. I suppose Brian meant the question this way: "Were
Paul and Jesus single because they were being punished?" The 
answer is still "no". They were single by choice.

According to Encarta Dictionary punishment is: "A penalty that is
imposed on somebody for wrongdoing". If someone divorces you and 
you are required to remain celibate against your wishes 
(regardless of your needs) you are being punished, regardless of 
whether you were wrong in the divorce or not. People sometimes 
punish others who are innocent of wrong doing. Invariably, the 
ones involved in requiring the punishment are guilty of 
wrongdoing themselves.

Brian continues:
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.

rw
The above is a perfect example of an attempt to prove a doctrine 
by using an argument that is only true if the doctrine for which 
one is trying to prove to be true is true. Brian says the 
divorced person is still married. Of course such was not the case 
under the O.T. and the O.T. was Law when Jesus (whose words Brian 
uses to try to prove his doctrine) spoke. Brian's only argument 
is: "Else they could not commit adultery…" Brian, the unmarried 
do not commit adultery when they marry. That thinking is not 
logical, it is not scriptural and it is not rational. Such 
thinking is a result of misunderstanding what Jesus taught. Jesus 
never said that a divorced person commits adultery. He said one 
who is "put away" (except where the relationship is 
"fornication," because it is not a true marriage) commits 
adultery when they marry. Divorce is composed of two parts (as 
seen in Deut. 24:1-4; Jer 3:8)): "Put away" and giving the "bill 
of divorcement". Brian, if you send your wife out of the house 
(put her away) you have not divorced her. Therefore, she cannot 
marry regardless of whether she committed adultery or not. You 
have to give her the "bill of divorce" before she is free to 
marry another.

Brian continues:
"Since Robert has not yet gotten around to his subject, let me
answer a few of his erroneous statements…"

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.

Robert here:
In view of the clear statements in God's word I find it amazing 
that Brian has asserted that "God did not divorce and marry 
another." Evidently Brian sees the force of my argument and is 
diligently seeking to persuade the reader that God did not 
divorce and marry another. To see the truth simply read the two 
passages below: (Jer 3:8) "And I saw, when for all the causes 
whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, 
and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah 
feared not, but went and played the harlot also." (Rev 21:9b) 
"Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife."

Will Brian next argue that Jesus is not God, or that the church 
is not married to Christ?

Brian continues:
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.

rw
Ok, first, we are talking about consistency, and this is not my 
only argument, obviously. Simply look at Matthew 19:9 and Matt 
5:32, as rendered by the KJV:

(Mt 19:9) Whosoever (hos) (an) shall put away (apoluo) his 
(autos)wife (gune), except (ei me) [it be] for (epi) fornication 
(porneia),and (kai) shall marry (gameo) another (allos), 
committeth adultery (moichao) and (kai) whoso marrieth (gameo) 
her which (ho) is put away (apoluo) doth commit adultery 
(moichao)

(Mt 5:32) "…whosoever (hos) (an) shall put away (apoluo) his 
(autos) wife (gune), saving (parektos) for the cause (logos) of 
fornication (porneia), causeth (poieo) her (autos) to commit 
adultery (moichao) and (kai) whosoever (hos) (ean) shall marry 
(gameo) her that is divorced (apoluo) committeth adultery 
(moichao)

The KJV obviously was not consistent in translating APOLUO as 
"put away", as can clearly be seen in the above passages. The ASV 
and several other respected versions were consistent here. 
"…whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth 
adultery (ASV). One of the rules for proper translating is 
consistency. Had the KJV translators been consistent various 
"scholars" would likely not have included "divorce" in their 
definition of APOLUO and Brian would agree that APOLUO means 
simply "put away".

Second, the most reliable translators did not translate APOLUO as
divorce.

Third, "put away" and divorce are obviously two different things
regardless of the fact that some have misused the phrase "put 
away" to mean more than it means. Scholars, do not say "divorce" 
is THE definition of apoluo. Bagster does not even mention 
divorce in his definition of APOLUO.

"Apoluo. Put away: To let go; to let loose; to send away" 
(Bagster's Analytical Lexicon)

Let us note some excerpts from the works of Josephus, the noted
Jewish historian:

10. But some time afterward, when Salome happened to quarrel with
Costobarus, she sent him a bill of divorce (12) and dissolved her
marriage with him, though this was not according to the Jewish 
laws; for with us it is lawful for a husband to do so; but a 
wife; if she departs from her husband, cannot of herself be 
married to another, unless her former husband put her away. 
(Antiquity Book 15 Chapter 7)

Josephus speaks of the "bill of divorce" as that which dissolves 
the marriage. I can't say that Brian disagrees with this but I 
can say that he is confused in thinking that "sending away" and 
giving the "bill of divorce" are the same thing.

(25) Here Josephus, a priest, honestly confesses that he did that 
at the command of Vespasian, which he had before told us was not 
lawful for a priest to do by the law of Moses, Antiq. B. III. ch. 
12. sect. 
2. I mean, the taking a captive woman to wife. See also Against
Apion, B. I. sect. 7. But he seems to have been quickly sensible
that his compliance with the commands of an emperor would not 
excuse him, for he soon put her away, as Reland justly observes 
here. (Life Footnotes)

It appears to me that Josephus (a Priest) "put away" his unlawful
wife. He makes no mention of any need for divorce or that he
divorced her.

(26) Here it is supposed that this captive's husband, if she were
before a married woman, was dead before, or rather was slain in 
this very battle, otherwise it would have been adultery in him 
that married her. (Antiquity Footnotes Book 4).

The above indicates that the Jews understood that adultery is
committed when one marries a woman whose husband is living. This
was the problem that Jesus dealt with – Jews putting away their
wives and the wives, as well as the men, then not being 
"eligible" for marriage, because they WERE STILL MARRIED. What is 
difficult or unbelievable about this?

"He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause (25)
whatsoever, (and many such causes happen among men,) let him in
writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any
more; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another
husband, although before this bill of divorce be given, she is 
not to be permitted so to do: but if she be misused by him also, 
or if, when he is dead, her first husband would marry her again, 
it shall not be lawful for her to return to him. If a woman's 
husband die, and leave her without children, let his brother 
marry her, and let him call the son that is born to him by his 
brother's name, and educate him as the heir of his inheritance, 
for this procedure will be for the benefit of the public, because 
thereby families will not fail, and the estate will continue 
among the kindred; and this will be for the solace of wives under 
their affliction, that they are to be married to the next 
relation of their former husbands; (Antiquity Book 4 Ch 8).

It seems clear from the above paragraph that Josephus had 
knowledge of Deut 24 and understood the problem that resulted in 
the command of God given by Moses. Before the "bill of divorce" 
was given the woman was not "permitted" to marry. Now, what other 
circumstance could have been the problem that resulted in the 
command of Moses OTHER THAN that the men were putting away their 
wives and NOT giving them the "bill of divorce", which dissolved 
the marriage?

In the last sentence of the above paragraph, Josephus makes a
comment that indicates that he understood compassion for women 
and this was in the context of the need for the divorce papers 
(which was commanded), which logically, was because of the 
mistreatment of the women. Some have contended that the reason 
the men were just putting away their wives and reluctant to give 
the "bill of divorce" was because if they "divorced" their wives 
they would have to pay back the dowry.

23. Let the Hebrews marry, at the age fit for it, virgins that 
are free, and born of good parents. And he that does not marry a 
virgin, let him not corrupt another man's wife, and marry her, 
nor grieve her former husband. (Antiquity Book 4 Ch 8)

I was unable to find where Josephus made any mention of where 
anyone was forbidden to marry, which is something that certainly 
would have made the rounds among the Jews if it were factual. But 
evidently no one who heard Jesus' response he said anything that 
He meant that legal marriages were to be busted or that some 
people who were legally divorced could not marry. According to 
Josephus' understanding, the only restriction…was that they be 
"at the age fit for it". This is consistent with the Apostle 
Paul's teachings in 1 Cor 7:36: "But if any man think that he 
behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the 
flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, 
he sinneth not: let them marry."  The male is to be a "man" and 
the female must have "reached the flower of her age". Any other 
restrictions placed upon people are man-made and not of the 
gospel of Christ (Gal 1:8,9).

"Then it was that Archelaus, the ethnarch, saw her, and fell so
deeply in love with her, that he divorced Mariamne, who was then 
his wife, ,and married her." (Wars Book 2 Ch 7:4)

Below is information about Archelaus:
Herod Archelaus: Jewish leader, ruler of Samaria, Judaea and Idumea 
between 4 BCE and 6 CE. His rule was disastrous and he was sent into 
exile by the Roman emperor Augustus. 
(seeHerod Archelaus

Josephus, when talking of Jewish persons who divorce, seems to
consistently use "divorce" rather than "put away", the latter
possibly being terminology that Romans sometimes used for 
divorce,but not Jews.

(39) That it was an immemorial custom among the Jews, and their
forefathers, the patriarchs, to have sometimes more wives or 
wives and concubines, than one at the same the and that this 
polygamy was not directly forbidden in the law of Moses is 
evident; but that polygamy was ever properly and distinctly 
permitted in that law of Moses, in the places here cited by Dean 
Aldrich, Deuteronomy 17:16, 17, or 21:15, or indeed any where 
else, does not appear to me. And what our Savior says about the 
common Jewish divorces, which may lay much greater claim to such 
a permission than polygamy, seems to me true in this case also; 
that Moses, "for the hardness of their hearts," suffered them to 
have several wives at the same time, but that "from the beginning 
it was not so," Matthew 19:8; Mark 10:5. (Wars Footnotes)

Josephus' understanding seems to be that what Moses suffered or
allowed, was the "putting away" of wives without divorce; which, 
in essence, meant that he suffered polygamy.

Below are versions that I have found that are consistent in NOT
translating APOLUO as "divorce".

Mat 5:32

(ASV) 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 
committeth adultery.

(BBE) But I say to you that everyone who puts away his wife for 
any other cause but the loss of her virtue, makes her false to 
her husband; and whoever takes her as his wife after she is PUT 
AWAY, is no true husband to her.

(Darby) But *I* say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his
wife, except for cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery,
and whosoever marries one that is PUT AWAY commits adultery.

(DRB) But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife,
excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit 
adultery: and he that shall marry her that is PUT AWAY, 
committeth adultery.

(LITV) But I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a
matter of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever
shall marry the one PUT AWAY commits adultery.

(MKJV) But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife,
except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit 
adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is PUT AWAY commits 
adultery.

(WE) But I tell you, no man may send away his wife unless she has
committed adultery. If he does send her away, he is making her
commit adultery. And if a man marries a woman who has been sent 
away from her husband, he commits adultery.'

(WYC) But I say to you, that every man that leaveth his wife 
[that every man that shall leave his wife], except (for) [the] 
cause of fornication, maketh her to do lechery, and he that 
weddeth the forsaken wife, doeth adultery.

(YLT) But I--I say to you, that whoever may PUT AWAY his wife, 
save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit 
adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been PUT AWAY doth 
commit adultery.

Now to Brian's reply to some of my other arguments:

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.

rw
Brian, are you not aware that scholars make mistakes? I do not
doubt that you will be able to provide a quote where someone who
purports to be a scholar says apoluo has been used to refer to
divorce. However, unless some particular scholar says APOLUO, as
used in Matt 19:9 means divorce, and you can prove he is 
inspired, your quote will not prove your affirmative. You will have 
to prove it with persuasive arguments, use of the scriptures 
and history; as I have already done. All these types of arguments 
are in favor of my view, thus you are going to have a problem 
proving your affirmative in this proposition.

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."

Brian replies:
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.

rw
I'm sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning, above. Jesus merely
responded to the Jews who were trying to entrap him. The answer 
to your quibble is very simple: Jesus simply chose not to teach
regarding Moses' Law, which required the death penalty for
adultery. Obviously, the type of adultery that was being 
discussed (men putting away their wives and marrying another) was 
never something for which the guilty were punished with death. It 
was something that Moses "suffered" because of the "hardness of 
heart".  Yes, it is clear that Jesus did not say the same thing 
that Moses did regarding the death penalty for one who commits 
adultery, but this does not hurt my case. Your assertion that 
"Jesus was giving a new and different law" also does not hurt my 
case. You have to give proof of that, which you have never done. 
In the previous debate I presented problems with your position, 
pertaining to this, which makes it completely unbelievable – so 
much so that even stanch defenders of your position (on requiring 
celibacy) have repudiated your argument.

Brian continues:
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.

rw
Brian, I do not think I need to prove to most people who are 
reading this debate that giving the "bill of divorce" is what 
ends the marriage. It was so during the time Jesus spoke and 
unless you are right in your contention that Jesus transgressed 
the Law by flatly contradicting it, it is so today. Because of 
the consequences of your position people are giving second 
thoughts about the truthfulness of it. Brian, you can provide 
your quotes from Greek scholars, as I have already done, but if 
you don't have the scriptures to back up your arguments (and you 
will not) you will be spinning your wheels. I've already shown 
how APOLUO amounts to separation – though admittedly, it does not 
have exactly the same meaning. But it is synonymous, which mean 
"the same, or nearly the same".

Brian continues:
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?"

rw
I can answer this one, which I'm sure would be basically the same
answer that brother Willis would provide. THE CONTEXT! (See my
remarks in the section that contains quotes from Josephus –
ANTIQUITY Book 4 ch 8).

Brian continues:
"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."

rw
First, it should be clear to all that Moses was giving a command 
to the men to give the women they put away a "bill of 
divorcement"  (Mark 10:3). Indeed, Moses was giving new law under 
God's inspiration. Brian, of course Apoluo was not used in Deut 
24, but "sent her away" (shalach), and "her out of his house" 
(bayith) was used and it (shalach) means the same thing. Also, 
"departed out" (YATSA) means "put away", see STRONG.

This is no straw argument, Brian. The fact that you are making 
such a weak argument here has to help people see that my position 
is sound.

Brian continues:
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.

rw
It seems that the facts, as Mike Willis has seen and which are
supported by the text and Josephus, are getting in the way of
someone's tradition.

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.

rw
Yes, we are discussing APOLUO, which is the issue in this debate.
But it is prudent to also discuss the O.T. equivalent of the 
word.

"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."

Brian, the passage is not about proving there was a divorce, but 
is about the CAUSE for the divorce – unfaithfulness on the part 
of the wife. Note the following comment:
"Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement; produce the 
bill, and it will show that she, not Jehovah, has been 
unfaithful." (Family Bible)

The passage does not say that putting away is divorce. It 
indicates that they were different matters. This point is made 
clear in the discussion pertaining to Jeremiah 3:1 in my first 
installment.

Brian continues:
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.

rw
Brian, in our language "put away" is NOT the same as divorce. We 
do not talk like that. Only men who need APOLUO (put away) to 
mean APOSTASION (divorce) talk like that in their writings. As a 
child did you ever play the game where you say the opposite of 
what you mean? If you say something wrong long enough you are 
going to get confused and the people that hear you are going to 
get confused.  Brethren, the translation from the ASV is correct 
and it means what it says, but Brian wants you to believe it 
means what he and others have been saying over and over that it 
means.

Brian continues:
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.

rw
Brethren, my definition of Apoluo is "put away", which amounts to
separation.

What is consistent about translating Apoluo as "put away" in one
part of a passage and "divorce" in another, when the exact same
thing is under consideration? Obviously the translators slipped 
in some of their own thinking, which was contrary to the Greek 
text.

Brian continues:
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.

rw
Again we see that Brian has divorce on the brain. Brian, do you 
not know that CHORIZO is the word for separate, or one of them? 
It is the word found in 1 Cor 7:11. Have you not been guilty of 
teaching that CHORIZO means "divorce" and that this passage 
refers to divorce? Notice how CHORIZO is rendered in Heb 7:26, 
below:

For (gar) such (toioutos) an high priest (archiereus) became 
(prepo)us (hemin), [who is] holy (hosios), harmless (akakos), 
undefiled (amiantos), separate (chorizo) from (apo) sinners 
(hamartolos), and (kai) made (ginomai) higher than (hupselos) the 
heavens ;

Paul uses "depart" in 1 Cor 7:11, which is from "chorizo" and 
means separate. If she departs the logical result is that she is 
then SEPARATE from her husband.

Brian continues:
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.

rw
Brethren, Brian's response above, has me shaking my head in 
amazement. Do you not see that he cannot, even for the sake of 
argument, for one moment consider the possibility that "put away"
does not mean divorce. They put their wives away (permanently
separating from them), which was to end the relationship that was
displeasing to God, but no word was used that indicated there was 
a divorce or that a divorce was necessary.

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.

rw
Brian's main argument against my use of this passage is that "she
was divorced" and his "proof" is that "she became another man's
wife". This is no proof. Does Brian not believe that Herod 
married his brother's wife but that it was "unlawful"?

Regarding the argument I made from Jer.3:1, please go back to my
first installment. Brian's effort to answer what the passage
teaches was a miserable failure.

Brian continues:
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.

rw
"Obviously meaning the same thing?" My, my, my, if a man has no
argument to make, and is not willing to give up the debate, he 
can always try to make his words sound persuasive by saying 
"obviously". But the prudent reader will see that what Brian 
wants you to think is obvious, is not even hinted at. I fail to 
see how the fact that God used "put away" and divorce in the same 
sentence help Brian in the least. To the contrary, it seems 
apparent to me that it helps my position. With Brian's reasoning 
(?) let us see how the passage must read:

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

Thus, Brian has God saying I DIVORCED HER AND I DIVORCED HER.
Nevertheless, the fact that God did two separate things 
(described with different words), to Israel is positive proof 
that the sending away is not the divorce. The divorce (legal 
proceedings evidenced by a "bill" or written statement) is the 
divorce. One can put away and not divorce and one can divorce and 
not put away. I made this argument in my first installment but 
Brian observed the Passover.

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.

rw
No, Brian, the passage is clear and I did not misapply it. 
Priests were simply forbidden to take a wife that had been put 
away. This restricted them to virgins and widows. It alleviated 
the possibility of a priest marrying one that might not have been 
properly divorced. Brian, I may not have a great argument here 
that proves my proposition, but I did not misrepresent the 
passage.

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.

rw
Brian, I'm going to go by what the text says. It says he had in
mind to put her away. Now, I'm not going to dispute your 
statement that those who were engaged, but wanted to end the 
engagement, did so in a legal way, at least ordinarily. But there 
is a pattern set forth in God's word as I have shown in this 
debate: Men who put away their women without a legal divorce only 
did so in the case where there was no "complete" legal marriage.

Brian next deals with:
"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.

rw
Brian really needs Deut 24 to only be speaking of divorce, as he 
has asserted, and he apparently has convinced himself of it, and 
of course he wants to convince you as well. But that is why I'm 
here – to try to prevent you from continuing to be deceived. All 
you have to do to see that put away and divorce is in the text is 
to read the context with a determination to see what is there.

(De 24:1-4) When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it
come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath
found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of
divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his
house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go 
and be another man's wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, 
and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, 
and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, 
which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent 
her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she 
is defiled; for that is abomination…"

"Send (shalach) her out" is the O.T. equivalent to APOLUO in the
N.T. Brian, in your reading of "what God says" you have made 
nothing simple. I remind the reader to go back to my first 
installment in this debate and reread the numerous problems that 
I noted which were associated with Brian's position. Brian says 
my explanation of what took place in Jesus' discussion with the 
Pharisees is "convoluted". Well, his whole doctrine is convoluted 
and every passage he tries to appropriate to his position has to 
be perverted.

I wrote:
"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 replied:
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.

rw
In view of the proof I gave from the words of Jesus (Mark 10:3) I
can't see how anyone who claims to believe the Bible would deny 
that the men were commanded to give the bill of divorce. WHAT 
OTHER REASON COULD THERE HAVE BEEN FOR THIS COMMAND THAN THAT THE 
MEN WERE "PUTTING AWAY" THEIR WIVES AND MARRY ANOTHER, BUT NOT 
LEGALLY DIVORCING THEM, I.E., GIVING THEM THE "BILL OF 
DIVORCEMENT"?

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.

rw
Brian, I don't know which Law you refer to when you say they were
married legally. The Law of Moses, which was the one John 
evidently was concerned with, was the Law that Herod had violated 
in marrying his brother's x-wife? (Lev. 18:16; 20:21)

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.

rw
God is the Judge, but his word indicates that a divorce does end 
the marriage. It was taught in the Old Testament, but the 
teachings where you say it was changed were, unquestionably, 
spoken by an O.T. prophet to the Israelites. In that same time 
frame, there was no teaching directed specifically to N.T. 
Christians that indicates that a divorce does not free both 
parties in the divorce. To the contrary, those who are 
"unmarried" (which includes the divorced) are to be allowed to 
marry (1Cor 7:8,9).

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.

rw
We all know the traditional teaching (which Brian seeks to 
defend) and the assertions upon which it is based. Indeed, Brian 
has presented the foundation (human assertion) for his doctrine 
in the paragraph above, but he provided no proof because there is 
no proof. God "joins" people who marry, but when a couple marries 
they had a part in that decision. God would not have joined them 
if they had not determined to marry. If this same couple 
determine to divorce it is their decision and there is no 
scripture that indicates that God does not recognize it. Thus, 
recognizing that the divorced are indeed "loosed", the passages 
in the N.T. that allow marriage are to be applied to those who 
are divorced. To fail to obey is to be guilty of teaching 
"doctrines of devils" by "forbidding to marry".

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.

rw
It seems that Brian is not so gung ho any more about asserting 
that Jesus contradicted the Law. He now says, "What Jesus taught 
was different". Certainly Jesus did not teach that persons could
divorce their spouse for any reason. Although the O.T. authorized
divorce, it did not encourage treachery. Rather, it condemned it.
Polygamy, which resulted when a man just put away a wife (did not
divorce her) and married another, was what was "suffered" by 
Moses.  This is what Jesus addressed when he told the Jews that 
one commits adultery when he puts away (apoluo) his wife and 
marries another, unless the reason is that fornication is being 
committed, i.e., the marriage was not legal. In the Old 
Testament, adultery was not a reason for divorce because if the 
wife was guilty of that the Law required the death penalty.

QUESTIONS:

1. If a man tells his wife, "We are through, get your stuff and 
get out of my house", and she leaves, was that a divorce?
Yes or No

2. If after a few days, the man tells his friends that he put 
away his wife, is what he did a divorce?
Yes or No

3. When the woman left, according to the man's orders, was this a
separation or a divorce?
Yes or No

4. Do you understand how the man could not say, "I separated  her"?  
He said I put her away, which is tantamount to "send her  away" or 
separating, which are synonymous terms.

5. If there had never been the effort to make the words APOLUO, 
as found in Matt 19:9, to mean "divorce" (and it was always
consistently translated "put away"), what would be the possible
thoughts being communicated if a man said, "I put away my wife"?

a. I sent her away from me and my house.
b. I had her committed to a mental institution.
c. I legally divorced her.

6. Is it true that a divorce, such as Moses commanded (Deut 24:1- 4; 
Mark 10:3) required both the "putting away," (or "sending  away") 
of the wife and the "bill of divorce"?
Yes or No

7. If one only sent his wife away, could it be accurately stated
that he divorced her?
Yes or No

8. If one only gave his wife the "bill of divorce" but kept  
living with her, did he properly divorce her?

9. Obviously, in English, "put away" does not mean "divorce". If 
it does, or the Greek did, why did the most reliable and trusted
translators (ASV) not translate it as divorce?

Brotherly,
Robert Waters