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

Waters argues:
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 
(Matthew19:9), He was only talking about cases where one was 
merely "put away" by his spouse without "a bill of divorcement". 

Robert states: If the above is understood and believed then a lot 
of things change.

Brian here:  Now we are getting to the gist of Robert’s 
reasoning.  Robert will not accept the teaching in the Bible that 
divorce is wrong and that remarriage is wrong except for the 
cause of fornication .  Isn’t it amazing to what lengths a person 
will go to change God’s will?  I want you to remember Robert’s 
statement above.  What he is saying is that if apoluo can refer 
to divorce, and if it can be proven it does refer to divorce in 
Matthew 19:9, then nothing changes, and all of his arguments in this 
and the past debate are null and void.

Robert said, 
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. 

Brian here:  I am not sure what the ‘traditional’ position is.  
God’s position is that marriage is for life, unless one divorces 
his/her spouse because of fornication.  The only problems I know 
from God’s position is the entangling nature of sin when man 
rejects God’s will.  

Robert says: 
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.

Brian states: “Ahh, but Robert, this is what you were supposed to 
prove in your affirmations.  You have not, as I will show in this 
denial.  Then very briefly, I will show in my affirmations why 
your argument concerning apoluo will not stand, and why this 
causes your entire doctrine on MDR to fall.

Robert states: 
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? 

Brian’s reply:  Obviously, neither Robert nor his reader understands the 
nature of a covenant, nor who this covenant of 
marriage is with.  In Matthew 19:5, the two become one flesh.  
Who makes them one flesh?  God does.  God joins people in 
marriage.  We see this also in verse 6, “what God hath joined 
together.”    So you have two people who are joined together in 
marriage through a covenant with God, not merely with each other.  
God dictates this is a lifelong covenant (Romans 7).  God allows that if one 
divorces his/her spouse because the spouse commits 
fornication, God frees the innocent spouse from the covenant.  
But the guilty spouse is not freed from the covenant.  They 
cannot be freed, because the covenant is for life.  Thus they 
remain bound to the covenant with God.

A diagram for Robert illustrating the covenant of marriage.

          God
         /     \
       /         \
Spouse         Spouse

I can’t release that bond unless God releases it.

A diagram for Robert illustrating a divorce because of 
fornication with the first spouse being the innocent.

          God
               \
                 \
spouse            Guilty spouse

God releases the innocent spouse from the covenant, but not the 
guilty spouse.

Robert states, 
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 replies, I’m not sure one in prison for murdering their 
spouse is going to have much of a marriage.  Plus, Robert has 
this wrong.  Being guilty of adultery does not prevent one from 
being able to marry.  One cannot remarry because they are still 
under a covenant God made.  The adultery is the result of sex 
without marriage.  In this case, the result of forming a 
relationship when God states they are still married.  This is why 
it is called adultery.  Otherwise it would simply be fornication. 
Beyond this, if Robert is displeased with God’s laws, he needs to 
take it up with God.

Robert states the following rules of hermeneutics:
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; 5) draw the conclusion that is most reasonable and 
logical. 

Brian replies: Numbers 1 and 2 I can agree with.  Number three 
has nothing to do with hermeneutics.  Our conclusions have 
nothing to do with whether God has said something or not.  The 
process of elimination has nothing to do with hermeneutics.  We 
are not looking at what is most reasonable and logical.  That may 
depend on the person.  We want to look at what God says.  Using 
pure reasoning and logical is worthwhile.  Using twisted logic 
such as Robert has shown simply is an attempt to change God’s 
word. 

And now we finally get to Apoluo

Robert tries to use a few selected translations in which Apoluo 
is translated ‘put away’ to prove his proposition.  I have never 
and will never argue that apoluo cannot be translated put away.  
What I am arguing is that it can also be translated divorce, in 
that sense synonymous with put away, and by the context must be 
in Matthew 19:9.  This will be proven in my first affirmation.

Robert states, 
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." ]

Brian replies:  Very good Robert.  The person putting away his 
wife (divorcing her) for reasons other than adultery does not 
have a lawful divorce as God see things.

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

Brian’s reply.  I’m glad Robert likes Thayer.  He should tell all 
that Thayer writes.  In my third affirmation, I will show that 
Thayer and other recognized word studies recognize Apoluo as 
being rightfully translated as divorce.

Robert states:  
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.

Brian Replies:  Robert has given no proof that Apoluo does not 
mean divorce.  The reason is because dictionaries and 
encyclopedias dealing with the Greek language show apoluo can be 
translated as divorce.  This proposition was actually silly, 
because it is too easy to show that.  I’ll wait until my third 
affirmation to do that.

Robert has tried to pull me into a discussion on separation.  
Based on Robert’s position, separation would be unlawful but 
divorce for any reason would be permitted.  There are times 
separation is lawful.  1 Cor. 7, when mutual agreement for prayer 
or edification.  Later in 1 Cor. 7, when one’s unbelieving spouse 
leaves and the spouse is helpless.  Neither gives the right to 
either divorce or remarry.  Some have pondered the question of 
abuse situations, which would take too long to get into in this 
debate.  

In writing concerning his link, Robert states the link could be 
pulled up by clinking on a link.

Robert, this is a debate.  You put your material in a debate.  
This is for several reasons.  I copy your posts into my word 
processor and answer as I have time.  I am not on the net.  Thus 
I cannot just click.  Second, these archives will be here for a 
long time. You link may not.  Those reading in the future will 
not have access to your link.  I refuse to deal with issues that 
for whatever reason you refuse to put in this debate.  Third, 
your posts are extremely long anyway.   I think it was a 
character in one of Shakespeare’s plays that states, “me thinks 
he doth protest too much.”  A proverb states “shallow brooks are 
noisy”.  Jesus said that some thought they would be heard for 
their much speaking.  Your last post was 42 pages long on my word 
processor.  I think Robert thinks if he puts enough volume in it, 
he will prove his point.  Unfortunately, none of his arguments 
have done that yet.

Robert states:  
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. 

Brian replies, Does Robert actually believe a language cannot 
have two words which mean the same thing?  Let me give you one 
example: threw, tossed, cast, lobbed.  All refer to the same act.  
There are several words for love, both in the English and Greek 
that refer to the same thing.  In fact, for the leaders of a 
congregation, there are several words referring to the same man.  
Can there be more than one word meaning divorce in Greek?  
Obviously. Just as there are more than one way to say one is 
divorced in English.

Robert states: 
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. 

Brian replies – see my thoughts above on covenants.  If God joins 
then God must be the one who ends.  Otherwise you are putting man 
above God.

Robert states:
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.”

Brian replies.  I’ll say it again.  Apoluo can be accurately 
translated put away or divorce and in many cases mean the same 
thing, most specifically in Matthew 19:9.  That the ASV 
translated “Put away” proves nothing. Put away can mean what we 
call divorce. 

In looking at some of Robert’s ramblings, I find this definition 
for divorce he gives:

2. [v] part; cease or break association with; "She disassociated  
herself from the organization when she found out the identity of  
the president" 

Sounds a lot like put away. - bjg

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?

Brian: Yes, the couple put each other away through the process of  divorce.  
One and the same.

Conclusion:

Robert states: 
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.

Brian here:  I’m glad Robert realizes he has not produced direct 
evidence (or any valid evidence) to support his proposition. One 
would think that when talking about written scripture and the 
meaning of words, one would not have to shy away from direct 
evidence, unless direct evidence does not prove a case which 
needs proven.

Robert states: 
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.

Robert, you have proven nothing, and have not dealt with the text 
in your proposition, but with every off beat source you could 
find that agreed with you.  I will show in my third affirmation 
trusted and proven sources that define apoluo as referring to 
divorce.  But only after I show in my first affirmation there is 
no other way apoluo can be translated in Matthew 19:9.  Then your 
house of cards will fall flat.

My only regret is that Robert will still not change his mind 
about MDR.  He will then search for another way to try to prove 
his gospel of MDR.

Robert states: 
The only way my proposition could possibly be shown to be error 
is to show that a couple, after adivorce, 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.

Brian here:  Actually, all I have to do is prove apoluo in 
Matthew 19:9 can be translated divorce.  I’ll do more than that. 
I’ll show that put away must refer to divorce in that passage.

Robert states: 
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.

Brian here:  Let’s consider something Robert, off to the side 
here.  If you are right here and I am wrong, and people have 
lived apart from 2nd, 3rd, or 20th spouses, that will not change 
their salvation with God.  But if I am right and you are wrong, 
and you convince people that their marriage is acceptable to God 
and they end up living in adultery, they are lost, eternally, in 
hell, because of your teaching.

Brian Galloway