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


Greetings to my honorable opponent, and to all who are 
endeavoring to learn the truth regarding divorce and remarriage.

In Matthew 19:9, the phrase "put away" denotes one who is sent 
away without a bill of divorcement.

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

If the above is understood and believed then a lot of things 
change. In my second installment I noted numerous problems with 
the traditional position – problems which neither Brian nor 
anyone else has an acceptable answer or solution.  When one 
understands that in His use of “apoluo”, Jesus had no allusion to 
divorce (in the complete legal and scriptural sense) he then will 
not only no longer be faced with the problems associated with the 
traditional position but will see everything fall into place.

One reader of this debate reminded me that I had failed to note a 
couple of the most serious problems with the traditional 
position.  One, how can the "innocent" party be separated by 
divorce and the “guilty” party still be bound?  Two, why can a 
person be forgiven for murdering a mate and able to remarry when 
they cannot remarry if they are guilty of adultery?  Brian talked 
about such things merely being "consequences," but it does not 
take a genius to see that the questions remain unanswered by 
Brian and those of like mind.  

I brought these problems up because they are in fact evidence 
that helps my position.  You see, in studying a Bible subject you 
have to apply certain rules of hermeneutics such as: 1) study all 
that is said on a subject before drawing a conclusion; 2) do not 
construe one passage so as to contradict another; 3) consider the 
consequences; 4) use the process of elimination; and 5) draw the 
conclusion that is most reasonable and logical. 

When the above rules are applied, the prudent disciple of Jesus 
will reject my opponent's teaching, which is contrary to God's 
nature and contradicts clear commands.  In the past, I took an 
almost identical position to Brian. But having examined the 
problems associated with this position, I was forced to reject 
it.   As long as one clings to error (does not eliminate it), the 
truth will remain elusive.  

Friends, the proposition I’m affirming is not a difficult one to 
accept, unless you are determined to uphold tradition.  You 
cannot have the truth while refusing to reject error.  My 
proposition is reasonable, logical and allows the entire Bible to 
be in harmony.  My opponent, however, does not believe it and 
seeks to dissuade you from believing it.  But it is impossible to 
show truth to be error.  This explains why Brian is unable to 
answer many of my arguments and questions. 

Here are some pre-KJV evidences:
[Wyclilff  (Mark 10:11) "Whosoever putteth awaye his wyfe and 
maryeth another, breaketh wedlock to herward. And if a woman 
forsake her husband and be maryed to another, she committeth 
advoutry also."
 
Greek/English Interlinear (tr)  {BUT I} legw [3004] (5719) {SAY} 
umin [5213] {TO YOU} oti [3754] {THAT} oV [3739] an [302] 
{WHOEVER} apolush [630] (5661) thn [3588] {SHALL PUT AWAY} 
gunaika [1135] autou [846] {HIS WIFE,} parektoV [3924] {EXCEPT} 
logou [3056] {ON ACCOUNT} porneiaV [4202] {OF FORNICATION,} poiei 
[4160] (5719) {CAUSES} authn [846] {HER} moicasqai [3429] (5738) 
{TO COMMIT ADULTERY;} kai [2532] {AND} oV [3739] ean [1437] 
{WHOEVER} apolelumenhn [630] (5772) {HER WHO HAS BEEN PUT AWAY} 
gamhsh [1060] (5661) {SHALL MARRY,} moicatai [3429] (5736) {COMMITS ADULTERY.} 

A margin note in The Geneva Bible translated from the Textus 
Receptus in 1560 (about 50 years before the KJV) concerning the 
term put away said, "that is, was not lawfully divorced." ]

It seems that it was not until AFTER the inconsistent translating 
of apoluo by the KJV, as “divorce” in Matt 5:32, that scholars 
even considered “put away” to possibly be a meaning for divorce.

Also, *Thayer* says apoluo means, "to dismiss from the house, to 
repudiate." (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 
pg. 66).

Brian wrote; 
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. 

rw
Yes, Brian, you have it right regarding what I have set out to 
prove.  But I really think you know that “put away” does not mean 
divorce, at least everywhere it is used.  You just need it to 
mean that in Jesus’ teachings, but have no proof of it.  It will 
be interesting to see your “proof” that apoluo means divorce.  
Proof is something that takes place in the mind.  In some cases, 
the mind may not be receptive to evidence, therefore to that 
person the evidence, even if received as conclusive by others, 
will not be received.  Of course, if one does not want the truth 
and is intent on defending error, no amount of evidence will 
accomplish anything.  

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.

rw
My question is very much related to the debate proposition.  You 
see, I maintain that if one only “puts away” his spouse and does 
not follow with the “bill of divorce” what he has done amounts to 
“separation”.  Such is completely logical because Jesus said if 
one marries another he commits adultery.  When you understand 
that one commits adultery against his spouse when he marries 
another (Mark 10:11; Rom 7:1-4) you should have no problem 
accepting the proposition.  

Nevertheless, Brian refused to answer the question and it should 
be evident why he would not answer.  He can’t answer my question 
in the affirmative because virtually all passages he could use to 
prove it he has errantly taught to be talking about divorce.  
Friends, is it not logical, reasonable and prudent that God would 
condemn separation?  You know it is and God has condemned it in 
both the Old Testament and the New Testament.  Paul clearly 
condemned separation except where there is consent for a period 
of time (1 Cor 7:?).  What Jesus was evidently condemning was a 
more permanent separation where the husband would put her out of 
the house and marry another.  It is very interesting that Brian 
has stated that such permanent separation would be equal to 
divorce (see his response to my question # 2). Thus, our 
difference now involves the definition of divorce.  Brian 
evidently thinks a permanent separation is a divorce.  
Interesting indeed!  He contends that APOLUO means divorce, and 
he contends that permanent separation means divorce, but his 
whole defense rests on the argument that apoluo does not mean 
separation.  Thus, he has no defense and my proposition is 
sustained.  

Brian writes:
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. 

rw
Brian, I’m concerned with teaching people the truth.  The 
“outside article” was one that I wrote and it could be accessed 
by simply clicking on the URL.  Now, I fully expect that people 
who are searching for the truth did click on that URL and read 
the article.  And, considering the fact that the number of visits 
to my site increased dramatically I can safely assume that it was 
effective. Brian, you are living in the computer age where the 
difference in a link (or hyperlink) and material on paper is a 
click of the mouse.  

In my first installment I said I did not care whether you 
responded to it or not.  But in my second installment, I dealt 
with some of the arguments that were in the article, yet you 
still refused to respond. 
I wrote:

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, and virtually all others 
who teach celibacy for those who have been divorced, has relied 
heavily on this passage when their proof text from the gospels is 
challenged.  But what is interesting is that the very word they 
claim means 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 “by consent for a time” and it 
is not anything sinful, according Paul.”

Now, Brian, are you going to give answer to the above?  This is 
your last chance.  As it stands the readers are seeing that 
“separation” is a critical issue in this debate and that you have 
probably been guilty of using the word “divorce” where only a 
separation was the context.  If you continue to shy away from 
this again you might as well consent defeat in this debate, for 
such will be evident to all.

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. 

rw
Brian, you are not facing the facts. People can and do divorce 
but not separate (for tax purposes), and people can "separate" 
but do not divorce, for what ever reason.  Thus, it is a fact 
that when a couple separates, which happens when a man merely 
puts his wife out of the house, he has not divorced her.  
Therefore, if apoluo means “put away” as the ASV consistently 
translates it, then it does not mean divorce.

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 
â€" 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. 

rw
Brian, you have demonstrated that you either do not understand 
the problems in this discussion involving meaning of words or you 
are evading acknowledgment of an argument, or presentation of 
evidence, that shows your position to be error.  In the example I 
gave, “put away”, if that term had been used, could mean divorce 
to the person who used it and it not have meant that in the way 
Jesus used it.  Just because the KJV was grossly inconsistent and 
translated "apoluo" in Matt 5:32 as "divorce" ONCE, resulting in 
others associating the word with divorce does not prove Jesus was 
talking about divorce.  “Apoluo” means “put away”, which amounts 
to separation.  It is not divorce, obviously, because for there 
to be a divorce there must be given a “bill of divorce”.  
Brethren, it takes BOTH to be a scriptural divorce.  My opponent 
is simply saying ONE of the two parts equals divorce, but there 
is no apparent reason for it other reason than to justify error.  

QUESTION:
If a man and woman separate (we will say that one was caught in 
an “affair”) and they both determine that it is permanent, do 
they need to get a “bill of divorce” before either can marry 
another?

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. 

rw
Brian, whether I affirmed my proposition or not will be 
determined by the readers; nevertheless, of all the feed back I 
got, from lists and personal mail, 100% do not believe that Jesus 
changed the law when you say he did.

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.

rw
It is interesting that Brian does not want to discuss the meaning 
of Apostasion and that he says it is irrelevant to my position.  
No, it is not irrelevant.  Brian would have the reader to believe 
that “put away” is THE word for divorce, but since apostasion is 
the word for it he has a problem.  Brian’s position is not 
logical.  If both words mean the same, as Brian asserts, then God 
is redundant.  Notice what Brian’s thinking does to the command 
of God:  “then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give 
it in her hand, and divorce her out of his house.”  

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.

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.”  

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
Brethren, is it not clear that Brian is on the run?  He makes a 
statement he thought he needed to make to rescue his position 
from ruin, and I showed that it was contrary to clear teachings.  
Brian’s only response was the statement above.  Brain, you are 
giving the appearance of having a willingness to deny what God 
has said to defend your position.  At least you did not deny that 
Jesus is God, as per Rev 21:9b.

Indeed, “separated” and "put away" are not exactly the same 
thing, Brian.  But when a man puts his wife out of the house they 
are separated – NOT DIVORCED, as you need it to mean.  AND, the 
man cannot marry another (scripturally) regardless of the reason 
for putting her out of the house.  

Brian continues:
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.

rw
But Brian, your position on Jesus’ teaching requires persons 
INNOCENT of marital SIN to also be required to never marry.  Your 
basis for the assertion is that they are still married to the one 
who divorced him/her.  But you cannot prove that.  In fact, there 
is not only no basis for it, other than your misuse of Jesus’ 
teaching, the Bible teaches against it in both the Old and New 
Testaments.

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. 

rw
It is obvious that apoluo means “put away” because it is so 
translated in many respected versions (including the KJV with one 
exception), and even consistently in the most reliable or 
accurate version, the ASV.  But what Brian is requiring that I 
do, which would constitute proof to him, is prove that it does 
not EVER mean divorce.  Words have more than one meaning; 
therefore it is impossible for me to provide that which Brian 
demands.  However, Brian has said he is a “big picture” man, 
therefore, I submit to you, Brian, that it is most logical and 
reasonable and hermeneutically sound to accept that “put away” 
means simply what is said, rather than something else, which 
others have concluded.  If you are determined to defend tradition 
and are willing to accept all the consequences of your doctrine, 
I cannot provide anything that will constitute proof to YOU.  
Speaking of consequences, here they are once again: You tell 
people who are not married that they cannot marry and you tell 
people who are married that they must divorce.  All this sounds 
too much like that which Paul forbade (1Tim 4:1-4) and it is 
clearly contrary to the idea he set forth when he said, regarding 
those who have no marriage, “let them marry”.  Thus, the biggest 
consequences will be at judgment when you face God for having 
done exactly the opposite of that which his word clearly states, 
and for having caused subjects of the gospel to turn away and new 
converts to sin or stumble (Matt 18:6). 

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. 

rw
Indeed, a person separated cannot marry another without 
committing adultery.  That is what Jesus taught.  But what is 
merely a separation can become a legal divorce, which would free 
both parties.  My opponent's position requires celibacy for life 
for even one who has committed no marital sin.  There is no 
justice in this and no amount of quibbling will change that fact.  
Of course, it is contrary to Scripture, rather than required by 
it.

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. 

rw
The idea that “God must be the one who ends the marriage” is 
nothing but an assumption that is needed to justify the practice 
of forbidding marriage.  A marriage is a covenant between two 
people and when that covenant is broken by legal papers so 
stating, then neither are any longer bound by the terms of the 
covenant.  Brian’s entire doctrine is based upon the assumption 
that only God can UN-join a marriage.  Well, at least he has not 
yet misused “Let not man put asunder” to try to make it teach 
that man cannot put asunder. 

[[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. 

rw
So, Brian takes up for the KJV translators in their inconsistent 
behavior.  The word “apoluo” (as used by Jesus) was translated 
“put away” in at least 10 places, as recorded in the gospels.  
But in the ONE instance, Matt. 5:32, the KJV was completely 
inconsistent in translating apoluo as “divorce”.  There was 
nothing different about how apoluo was used in Matt 5:32 as 
opposed to how it was used in Matt 19:9.  The only logical 
conclusion for the inconsistency is that the translators, for 
whatever reason, erred.  The ASV is considered to be the most 
accurate version by most conservative Christians and it 
consistently translated apoluo as “put away”. 

My opponent keeps saying I have no proof that apoluo was used 
only to refer to “put away”, but the proof I have is at least as 
solid as the ASV.  We will get to it when he does his 
affirmative, but I’m going to tell you now, the only evidence he 
has that apoluo means divorce is the writings of some “scholars” 
who include it in their definition, which was probably for no 
other reason than that it was found to be so translated in the 
KJV in one place, and that since that time “put away” has 
commonly been used interchangeable with divorce.  But again, we 
are concerned with what Jesus meant.  What people think and say 
since Jesus spoke did not and will not change the truth of the 
matter.

Then my opponent says “put away” and “divorce” mean “one and the
same.”  Now, he knows better than that, but needs for such to be
true, so he makes the assertion.  When we get to the questions I
asked Brian to answer, you will see (if not already) that Brian 
has run into some real problems in trying to defeat my arguments.

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

Brian replies, Which translators do you refer? 

rw
Brian, are you not afraid that brethren will begin to question 
your honesty?  I provided a list of them and the ASV was among 
them?  Your reply was to state that most were “obscure” and “one 
man” translations.  Well, if that is any proof that they are not 
worthy of consideration then we will remember your statement when 
you use lexicons by works of “one man” in your affirmative. 

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. 

rw
I do not have “Kettles” and Thayer does not say “divorce” is THE
definition of “put away”.  And, unless the ASV was wrong in its
choice of words “apoluo” is obviously not the same as divorce. 
Brian, you can put away your wife but not divorce her.  Also, you 
can divorce your wife but decide to not put her away.  But if you 
were to catch her in the act of adultery you might decide to give 
her the "bill of divorce" and would then put her away.  Now, if 
you are determined to make “put away” mean both “put away” and 
“divorce” that is your problem, but I suggest that if you 
continue it you are not qualified to continue your practice as a 
Marriage Counselor.  

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

rw 
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)

rw
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. 

rw
Brian, your thinking is apparently clouded. Where do you get that
“she put him away/divorced him”?  The argument I made was 
regarding the statement, “she sent him a bill of divorce (12) and 
dissolved her marriage with him”.  It was the “bill of divorce” 
(apostasion) that DISOLVED the marriage, not the “putting away” 
(apoluo).  Now, I do not know what the Greek words were that were 
translated “put her away” as used later in the paragraph, thus I 
made no argument regarding it and you do not have one either.  
Nevertheless, I made an argument and you evaded it, as you have 
done regarding other arguments that shed light upon your error.  

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) 
t color=black>
rw
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. 

rw
My opponent is complicating this debate by his failure to admit 
that there is a difference in merely sending someone away and 
giving them the divinely required “bill of divorce” 
(except where the relationship is “porneia”) before sending them away. 

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). 

rw 
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. 

rw
Of course, where I said, “whose husband is living”, Brian knew I 
was meaning ex husband.  But when you teach error, as my opponent 
is, you must take every advantage you can.  Brian took advantage 
of an opportunity to not only dodge my argument but also to make 
some assertions that amount to nothing but the "circular 
reasoning" that is the support for his doctrine.  

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). 

rw 
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. 

rw
Brain, I’m just going to assume that you did not carefully read 
what was said and make no further comment except that your 
comment amounts to nothing more than a dodge. 

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) 

rw
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 thought he said 
anything that indicated 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. 

RW 
First, my opponent seeks to discredit Josephus.  Second, he 
evades the argument I made completely, which was regarding who is 
qualified for marriage.  IT IS IN THE PASSAGE BRIAN, read it. 
Third, Brian says my use of Gal 1:8,9 is “useless” because Christ 
placed the restrictions on MDR.  Brian, was what Jesus taught 
O.T. or N.T. teachings?  What is your point anyway?  What you 
said appears to merely be another dodge.  Regardless of what you 
think Jesus taught or whether it was O.T. or N.T., my use of Gal 
1:8,9 applies to any who would make unscriptural restrictions on 
who is qualified for marriage.  

(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) 

rw 
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 referred to what our savior says about 
the common Jewish DIVORCES.  He understood Jesus to be speaking 
of divorce, not separation. 

rw
Again, Brian jumps off on another point and evades the argument I
made completely. 

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. 

RW 
The “exception” my opponent talks about (ASV), considering its
reputation as being the most accurate English translation, is a
rather substantial show of evidence.  Brian tries to ignore the 
ASV and discredit the others by the assertion that they are 
"obscure" and "one man versions"' yet the “evidences” that he 
will present in his affirmative will be “works of one man”.  
One’s proof can’t get any better than what is said in the ASV.  
Also, several of the other versions noted above are highly 
respected and quoted from often.  (Two other versions…have 
already been noted previously.)   Brian knows that what is said 
in English (as in the ASV) supports my position, which is why we 
see the response he wrote above.  Isn’t it amazing what men will 
do and say to protect their tradition?

Here is another version that was written before the KJV:
[Wyclilff  (Mark 10:11) "Whosoever putteth awaye his wyfe and 
maryeth another, breaketh wedlock to herward. And if a woman 
forsake her husband and be maryed to another, she committeth 
advoutry also."

If you wish to learn more about the versions noted above, below 
are some links that should be helpful:
Which Version
Translations
Bible Translation

The latter link, above, has an exhaustive list of versions, 
several of which I have not seen yet.

Brian continues:
“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?” 

rw – Brian, have you completely lost it?  Are you so 
rattled by not being able to make a logical response to my arguments that 
you can’t think clearly?  Putting away and divorce ARE NOT so 
linked as to both be a true definition of the same word.  If you 
have quit trying in this debate why don’t you just give up 
completely and admit that I have affirmed my proposition.  I’ll 
have to admit that you are hurting me somewhat by making it 
appear that I have chosen an incompetent opponent for this 
discussion. However, I know that such is not the case – you just 
are incapable of defeating the truth, which puts you in the same 
boat as other intelligent men.

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. 

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. 

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. 

RW 
Put away and divorce are “together” in your mind, Brian, but in 
the Scriptures, both the O.T. and the N.T., they are different 
terms with different meanings.  Brian admits that they are “two 
things”, yet he continues to be inconsistent and also assert that 
they are ONE thing.  That is really strange.  Nevertheless, Brian 
has given up the debate by his admission that they are TWO THINGS.

It is impossible to prove that a word has only one meaning, but 
there is ample evidence that apoluo, as used by Jesus, means “put 
away” or “send away” which results in separation.

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. 

rw
Brain, please read my argument again.  Your response indicates 
you did not understand what I said or that you just wrote 
something to serve as another dodge.

“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.” 

rw
The above response from Brian is contemptible.  It reminds me of 
the fellow who engaged in a game of chess with a friend, who 
soundly defeated him in short order.  He was asked by another 
friend the next day how the game went. He replies, “He did not 
show up”.  Of course, the facts were known by all.  

At any rate, the proposition I signed was not that apoluo cannot 
mean divorce.  I have provided evidence to sustain my 
proposition, which is that Jesus’ use of apoluo was not about 
divorce but merely putting away.  The following supports my 
position: the ASV (the strongest authority there is) supports my 
proposition, reason and logic supports it, the idea of the need 
for a harmonious understanding of God’s word (truth) supports it, 
the idea of justice supports it, some English dictionaries and 
some Greek lexicons support it; yet Brian continues to assert 
that I have not provided any proof to sustain my proposition.  

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 

rw
If the “yes” was the answer to my question, then it appears my
opponent believes that a divorce takes place at the point of
separation if one of the parties seem determined that it is
permanent.  I might ask, would they then need to marry again if 
they decide to get back together?  Please answer.

Brethren, it appears that rather than admit error and give up the
debate Brian is willing to say that a “bill of divorce”, which 
God commanded, is something that one can ignore, as well as 
ignore the laws of the land.  What we have here is a perfect 
example of where one error leads to another.  Truth is supported 
by other truth.  Error is supported by further error, with proves 
nothing.

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

Brian replied: 
“If the separation is made permanent.”

rw
Brian, what do you mean by, “Made permanent”?  Do you mean if one 
or both parties determine it is permanent then it is a divorce?  
I think you see my argument and you see the weak position you 
hold.  By your assertion that a separation, if permanent, is 
equal to divorce you are guilty of defending the exact thing that 
the Lord declared was adultery in the very passages you use to 
defend your practice of imposing celibacy and breaking up 
marriages.

“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.”

rw
Because of your wavering I’m unable to determine for certain if 
you mean they are really divorced, because they went to the court 
and got a certificate of divorce, or if you just mean they were 
divorced because they were permanently separated.

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. 

rw
Brian, the “situation” was as I laid it out in question number 
one. Therefore, once again, you have evaded the question.  You 
say that kicking one out does not carry the same weight as 
putting one away, but the reason you have so concluded is because 
you think putting away means divorce.  The man in my "question" 
put the woman out of the house - just like the Jews were doing.  
There was no legal divorce at this point.      

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.” 

rw
My opponent has once again you have evaded answering a question.  
How can one not see that when a man puts away his wife or sends 
her out of the house, and no legal divorce has taken place, that 
such is tantamount to SEPARATION.  The meaning is not exactly the 
same as "put away," but it is close enough to be classified as 
synonymous.  It is in my mind, but it is also in yours and all 
others who are reading this debate.

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. 

rw
The other two choices were: 
a) I sent her away from me and my house; 
b) I had her committed to a mental institution. 

But Brian eliminated these two and answered, “I legally divorced
her”.  Now, Brian, were you really sincere in giving that answer? 

The way Brian has responded to these questions (as you will see 
when you read the others) indicates his understanding that “put 
away” can mean “I sent her away from me and my house.”  
Nevertheless, his continuing effort to make this “sending away” 
equal to “divorce” is seen as a inconsistent and a disparate 
attempt at salvaging a sunken ship. 

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"? 

Brian responds:
"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."  (emphasis mine - rw) 

rw
Ah, “part” of the divorce...Brian now says.  Thus, not THE 
divorce, as he has argued.  Brian has given up the debate.  
Unless he retracts that statement, there is no need for the 
debate to continue.  

Ok, let us “reread” Deut. 24:  “then let him write her a bill of
divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his 
house.”  Indeed, the “put away” (“send her out”) is part of the 
divorce, but the parts can and have been acted upon separately, 
and when it is done it does not amount to a scriptural and legal 
divorce.  The only logical conclusion that we can reach for the 
reason God commanded the “bill of divorce” is that some of the 
Jews were sending the wife out of the house, which did not free 
them, and they were marrying another (Matt 19:9). They were 
separate issues but the first (the putting away) without the 
other (the divorce) was what prompted God to require the latter 
part – the divorce papers.  They are separate and each part may 
be accomplished separately even today, but one without the other 
(apoluo being one) IS NOT a divorce.

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. 

rw
Brian, I was not referring to Deut 24.  You have once again 
evaded forthrightly answering a question.  You know the answer 
but would not give it because it destroys your position and 
sustains mine.   

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. 

rw
Again, Deut 24 was not mentioned in the question.  People 
commonly divorce today and continue living together to avoid 
having to pay more taxes, thus it is not “nonsensical”.  Once 
again, Brian has evaded answering a question.  

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. 

rw
Since Brian cannot give a logical reason why the ASV chose to
consistently translate apoluo as “put away”, rather than 
“divorce”, we have to assume that his answer would be the same if 
all the versions that came after the ASV has followed suit.  
Therefore, Brian is evidently going to reject any evidence I 
might present that is contrary to his position.  

Brian says, 
“Because the two are connected.  Saying one implies the other.”  

No, Brian, you are wrong and the fact that you evaded clearly
answering question after question (particularly no. 7), indicates
that you know that “put away” and “divorce” are not necessarily
connected, as you assert.  

In English, “put away” would never have been used to describe a
divorce had it not been for the mistranslation of apoluo.  If a
mother told her child to “put away” his toys she would not be 
telling him to “divorce” them.  “Put away” means, “to put 
something in the place where it is normally stored or kept ready 
for use” (Encarta Dictionary).   “Put away” also has other 
meanings but no English dictionary I have seen says it 
exclusively means divorce.  And the fact that some do not include 
“divorce” at all in their definition is significant.  Note the 
following:

Wordnet Dictionary: 
“Put Away”
Definition: 
1. [v]  turn away from and put aside, perhaps temporarily; "She
turned away from her painting" 
2. [v]  eat up; usually refers to a considerable quantity of food;
"My son tucked in a whole pizza" 
3. [v]  kill gently, as with an injection, as of pet animals 
4. [v]  place in a place where something cannot be removed or 
someone cannot escape; "The parents locked her daughter up for 
the weekend";
"She locked her jewels in the safe" 
5. [v]  throw or cast away; "Put away your worries" 
6. [v]  lock up or confine, in or as in a jail; "The suspects 
were imprisoned without trial"; "the murderer was incarcerated 
for the rest of his life" 

Synonyms: cast aside, cast away, cast out, chuck out, discard,
dispose, fling, gaol, immure, imprison, incarcerate, jail, jug, 
lag, lock, lock away, lock in, lock up, put behind bars, put to 
sleep, remand, shut away, shut up, throw away, throw out, toss, 
toss away, toss out, tuck away, tuck in 

See Also: abandon, break up, close out, confine, confine, cut 
off, de-access, deep-six, detain, disrupt, dump, eat, eat up, 
finish, get rid of, give it the deep six, interrupt, jettison, 
junk, kill, liquidize, pension off, polish off, remove, retire, 
scrap, sell off, sell out, sell up, trash, unlearn, waste 

“Divorce” 
Definition:
1. [n]  the legal dissolution of a marriage 
2. [v]  part; cease or break association with; "She disassociated
herself from the organization when she found out the identity of 
the president" 
3. [v]  get a divorce; formally terminate a marriage; "The couple
divorced after only 6 months" 

rw
Note #3, in the above definition:  Brian, did the couple put each
other away? Or did they formally terminate (disolve) the marriage
through the courts?

You can kill your wife, or put her in an institution, or cast her
away, or “get rid of her”, etc., but unless you file for divorce 
to “formally terminate” the marriage, which is to provide her 
with the legal papers, you have NOT divorced her.  Thus, apoluo, 
which is said by the most respected group of scholars and 
translators to mean “put away” in English, is only PART of the 
process of divorce, and on this point my opponent has agreed. 
Thus, Brian has helped me to prove my proposition.

Conclusion:

In the case of a murder trial it is not necessary to have a 
“smoking gun”, with witnesses on the scene to testify they saw 
the defendant fire the gun, to prove he was guilty of having 
committed the murder.  The case can be proven by “circumstantial” 
evidence.  For example, the prosecuting attorney provides the 
following evidence: 
1) The defendant was only one of two persons who had a motive; 
2) He owned the type of gun that was used in the crime (though 
not found); 
3) The same type of bullet that was used in the crime was found 
in his house; 
4) He was seen leaving the scene of the crime around the time of 
the murder; and 
5) The other person who had a motive had an iron clad alibi. 

With this type of evidence the prosecutor could present his case 
to jury with confidence and with full expectation of a 
conviction.   Of course, the defendant would have a lawyer who 
would try to persuade the jury that his client was innocent.  He 
might even assert that the prosecutor provided “not one iota of 
evidence”, but the conscientious jury would not be moved by such.  
He might even bring in “authorities” who he hopes will say 
something that will help save his client, but any authority who 
says something contrary to known truth should not change the mind 
of an honest juror. 

When you look at the circumstantial evidence (the big picture) 
that I have provided, there is no other logical conclusion than 
that Jesus was not referring to a legal divorce when he spoke 
regarding the Jews who were guilty of “apoluo”, or sending their 
wives out of the house, and then marrying another.  The only way 
my proposition could possibly be shown to be error is to show 
that a couple, after a divorce, though not still legally married, 
are still married “in God’s eyes”.  However, there is no possible 
way to prove that – it is only an assumption.  Therefore, the 
practice of breaking up marriages and telling divorced persons 
they must remain celibate is supported by nothing but a false 
interpretation of Jesus’ teachings.  When you consider that it 
would have been impossible for Jesus to have taught contrary to 
the Law under which he lived, as he must have done in my position 
is to be shown to be error, then my position must not only be 
seen as reasonable, logical and probable, but scripturally sound.

You are the jury.  The evidence is conclusive and the alternative 
to my position is unacceptable for many reasons, which I have 
noted throughtout this debate.  What is your verdict? 

Brotherly,
Robert Waters