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 herein will open in a separate browser 
window

Robert states: 
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."

Robert says: “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.”

Brian’s reply: Actually Robert, you must prove your proposition. 
Your proposition is that Jesus was not speaking of divorce, but 
of putting away without divorcing.

Robert says, 
“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?”

Brian replies: This is not our debate proposition.  Our 
proposition is whether Jesus was speaking of divorcing or of 
merely putting away. 

Then Roberts lists his ‘proof’ he gave in his first installment.

1. In my first installment I provided a link to my article 
regarding Paul's teachings in 1 Cor 7:10, 11. I said it was up to 
Brian to respond to it or not. He did not.

Dear Robert, I am going to assume you know little about 
debating.  In a debate, you do not refer an opponent to a 
reference and expect him to read and answer that reference.  
Instead, you state your argument in the debate.  Your 
affirmations are long enough without going to any outside 
references which you did not include in your affirmation.  You 
have one affirmation remaining.  If an outside reference has 
something you feel is important, include that argument in your 
text.

Robert goes on to say, 
“Brian says "put away" (apoluo) does not mean separation.”

No, Robert, Brian did not say that.  Brian says that apoluo also 
means divorce.  When one divorces they also separate, but they do 
more than merely separating.

2. 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 here, Dear Robert, I did not respond to your example, 
because it needed no response.  It proves nothing.  In fact, you 
even state “It could mean she divorced him”.  Well, if apoluo 
could mean divorce, you just lost this debate.

3. Robert states, 
In the previous debate I showed that Jesus could not possibly 
have changed the law.

Brian’s reply, Actually, you tried but failed to show that.

4. Robert states, 
In his reply to my affirmative, Brian says APOLUO does not mean 
"separate".

Brian replies, No, Brian states apoluo does not mean merely to 
separate, it also means to divorce.  I will show word study 
evidence to prove that in my affirmations.

Robert says,
Is this not an indication that Brian is willing to say anything 
to defend his position?

Brian replies, Again Robert, I think you fail to understand 
debating.  Right now we are in your affirmations.  It is your job 
to defend your position.  I simply answer you arguments.  When it 
becomes my turn to affirm, then I will defend my position.

5. Robert then states the definition of: 
"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).

Brian’s reply.  I will not argue or even look up what apostasion 
means, because it is irrelevant to your proposition.  That 
apostasion means divorce does not exclude apoluo from also 
meaning divorce.  You must prove apoluo does not mean divorce, it 
merely means to separate.

In speaking of a thief’s repentance meaning he must return the 
money stolen, Robert responds, 
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 replies, No Robert, it shows he could not have that 
lifestyle through illegally obtained funds.  Likewise, a person 
is not to enjoy an intimate physical relationship with a person 
God does not recognize as his spouse.

Then Robert gives a lengthy essay of whether celibacy is a 
consequence of divorce. What Robert is trying to do here is state 
an argument based on the conclusion that apoluo does not mean 
divorce.  Robert, you must first prove that before making any 
conclusions from that.  You have not proven it yet.

Robert then tries to reason that God would not be just in not 
allowing an innocent party to a divorce to remarry.  What Robert 
does not realize is that even if his definition of apoluo is true 
(which he has yet to prove), the same argument would apply to the 
person separated.  What Robert must realize is that the inability 
to remarry with God’s blessings may not be a punishment, but 
merely a consequence of what has happened in life.

Robert states, 
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.

Brian replies, Ah, now perhaps we are getting to the crux of the 
matter.  Matthew 19:1-12 shows Jesus teaching that God is the one 
who joins marriage, and God must be the one who ends the 
marriage.  Man’s attempt to divorce does not end marriage from 
God’s standpoint, nor allow remarriage.  God only ends the 
marriage if fornication is involved.

[[from the past post]]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. [[end from my last post]]

Robert replied:
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:

Brian here:  What other arguments have you set forth?  This is 
all you have said about apoluo, is that it should be translated 
“put away”.  Robert, based on what the word “apoluo” means, do 
you not think perhaps put away either at times or all the time 
means divorce? 

Robert states, 
The KJV obviously was not consistent in translating APOLUO as 
"put away", as can clearly be seen in the above passages.

Brian replies, Or perhaps the KJV was very consistent and ‘put 
away’ and ‘divorce’ mean one and the same.

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

Brian replies, Which translators do you refer? 

Robert says, 
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.

Brian replies, Robert, why did you not quote from Thayer or from 
Kettles.  These are probably the most recognized authorities on 
the greek language.  

This next section, Robert deals with some things Josephus says:

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. 

Brian replies I’m not at all sure what this has to do with the 
debate.  She put him away/divorced him.

Robert goes on:
(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.

Brian here:  It would seem to me that if he married her, and 
decided that was unlawful, putting away would be a divorce. 
Robert, you are proving my side of the debate.

Robert continues:
(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?

Brian replies:  Robert, I agree with your definition of 
adultery.  That is why when one obtains a legal divorce not 
recognized by God, that from God’s view, the God who joins and 
dissolves marriages, that marriage is still intact even though 
the civic society says they are divorced.  Thus a new union is 
adultery.  That is why remarriage in the case of unscriptural 
divorces are wrong.

Robert continues:
"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? 

Brian here:  Robert, all you have shown is that Josephus thought 
like the Pharisees who came to Jesus in Matthew 19. Jesus 
disagreed with them and set them straight.  That would mean the 
same to what Josephus said.

Robert, referring to the quote from Josephus above says:
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.

Brian replies, Robert, you are showing your lack of understanding 
of scriptures.  This is dealing with continuing the family name 
through the brother of the dead husband.  It has nothing to do 
with mistreatment of women. It doesn’t even have to do with 
divorce. 

Robert continues
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).

Brian replies:  Robert, do you think Josephus will speak from the 
standpoint of what Jesus said?  Josephus is a Jew.  He is going 
to follow the Jewish line of thinking.  1 Cor. 7:36 has nothing 
to do with divorce, it speaks of whether one should marry in that 
present distress.  You reference to Gal. 1:8-9 is useless, for 
Christ placed the restrictions on MDR.

Robert goes on:
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. (see Herod 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.

Brian here:  Robert what is the greek word used here?  You are 
reading an english translation.  And even if another word for 
divorce was used, what does that prove?

(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. 

Brian replies, Robert you again are proving my part of this 
proposition.  Even Joseph refered to “what our savior says about 
the common Jewish DIVORCES”  He understood Jesus to be speaking 
of divorce, not separation.

Then Robert says:
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.

Brian here:  It is interesting what versions Robert has pulled 
out.  With the exception of the ASV, these are obscure and for 
the most part one man versions.

But even at that, if putting away and divorce were so linked as 
to both be a true definition of the same word, then what is the 
point?

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

I will simply list Robert’s replies.  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.

Brian here:  Robert, this makes a lot of sense.  You state that 
unless I use an inspired scholar, I cannot prove your argument.  
Robert, show me your inspired scholar.  You are the one proving 
the argument presently.  What you have just done is negated your 
entire attempt at an argument.

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 replies:  No one dispute that divorce ends a marriage in 
man’s eyes, but not necessarily in God’s eyes (but wait, you may 
dispute that).  What we are discussing is whether Apoluo can also 
mean divorce.  You have not shown it can only mean separation.

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. 

Brian replies, in other words, Robert, God connected putting away 
and divorce as being two things that always go together.  Perhaps 
that is why Apoluo is used so much, because it puts the two 
together.

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"." 

Brian’s 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. 

The rest of what Robert wrote was speculation on the same sort 
that he has made.  Robert has yet to prove (or even try to prove) 
that Apoluo cannot mean divorce.  

Perhaps Robert’s best quote in the remainder of his 2nd 
affirmative is as follows: 
Brian, I may not have a great argument here that proves my proposition . . . .    

With that quote, I totally agree. 

Then Robert asks the following questions, which have little to do 
with the proposition. 

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 in most cases the divorce will go along with that

2. If after a few days, the man tells his friends that he put 
away his wife, is what he did a divorce?

If the separation is made permanent.  Robert, I am a marriage counselor.  
Often I have people say to me, “My wife and I are no 
longer together.”  “We have split up.”  “We are separated.”  
Further questioning shows they are divorced.  Yes, our society 
uses other phrases to refer to divorce.

3. When the woman left, according to the man's orders, was this a 
separation or a divorce?

Depends on the situation.  Kicking one out of the house does not 
carry the same weight as putting one away.  Surely, Robert, you 
can even see that.  If I were to tell someone, I have put my wife 
away, or I am putting my wife away, they would assume I was 
divorcing her. 

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.

Only in your mind, Robert, are those terms synonymous.

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"?

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"?

The sending away is part of the divorce, not two separate 
things.  You need to reread Deut. 24.  It never refers to sending 
away as being a separate issue.

7. If one only sent his wife away, could it be accurately stated 
that he divorced her?

Deut. 24 does not refer to it apart from divorce.  This is a 
figment of Robert’s imagination.

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

That is nonsensical.  Why would one divorce his wife according to 
Deut. 24 and remain living with 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?

Because the two are connected.  Saying one implies the other.

Brian Galloway