Proposition: 
When Jesus stated that when one "puts away" his spouse, except 
it be for fornication, and marries another he commits adultery 
(Mt:19:9), he was talking about cases where a legal divorce had  
taken place, which is the same as "put away".
 
Affirm: Brian Galloway
Deny:  Robert Waters

Proposition: "When Jesus stated that when one "puts away" his 
spouse, except it be for fornication, and marries another he 
commits adultery(Mt:19:9), he was talking about cases where a 
legal divorce had taken place, which is the same as "put away"."

This affirmative is going to be short, because it takes little to 
show Robert to be in error.  This affirmative alone will show 
this, but I will follow with two others in the next few weeks.

Robert spent 80-100 pages (based on the number on my word 
processor) trying to prove Apoluo does not mean divorce.  This is 
important to Robert, for if he can prove this, then he believes 
his theory of MDR has some credibility.  If he cannot prove this, 
his theory falls.  I predict that we will see Robert changing the 
reasons for his position in the next few months, for he will not 
give up his position, instead he tries to make the fact fit what 
he wants.

Actually in Robert's affirmations, all he proved was that Apoluo 
can be translated as put away.  Nobody has any contention with 
that.  However,his opinion is that put away always means to be 
separated but not divorced.  He did not and cannot prove that, 
because #1) Matthew 19:9 and related passages show in their 
context this talks about divorce, #2)other uses in the Bible of 
the phrase, “put away” show it can refer to divorce, and #3) the 
word apoluo itself has as its definition the idea of divorce.

In this first affirmation I want to notice the text itself.  
Matthew 19:9 states, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put 
away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, 
committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put 
away committeth adultery.” (ASV)

Robert believes what this text is saying is as follows: Whosoever 
shall separate from his wife, except for fornication, and shall 
marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when 
she is separated committeth adultery.

Robert explains it like this.  He is talking about a mere 
separation, not about a divorce.  When someone separates from his 
wife, he cannot remarry until he gets a divorce.  When he gets a 
divorce, then they are both free to remarry.

The following points prove Robert to be wrong.

1. First, Robert forgot about the phrase “except for 
fornication.” That phrase destroys Robert's 80-100 pages.  If 
apoluo (put away) in this verse means a mere separation and not a 
divorce, then Jesus is allowing one merely separated from his 
wife, without a divorce, to remarry if his first wife was 
unfaithful to him.  And he is allowing the same thing for a wife 
who puts away her husband (Mark 10:12). 
a. Is Jesus teaching polygamy?
b. Does Robert want us to believe Jesus is allowing women to be 
married to more than one husband at a time?
c. Robert has Jesus teaching exactly what he states could not be 
done, merely separating and remarrying without a divorce, if the 
spouse committed fornication.

2. If apoluo (put away) in this verse means a mere separation and 
not a divorce, a man who separated from his wife and remarried 
another would not be in sin anyway (it would not be adultery), 
for God permitted polygamy in the Old Testament (according to 
Robert's argument that Jesus taught the same as the Old 
Testament).  Either way Robert wants to look at it, Jesus is 
changing what the Old Testament teaches (which destroys the first 
part of the argument in the part one of his debate).  Except, do 
we want to believe Jesus is allowing women to be married to a 
number of men at one time?

3. Jesus defined putting away in Matthew 19:6.  “What God joins 
together, let not man put asunder.”  Man should not undo what God 
has done. To undo joining together, would be to unjoin.  A 
separation is not unjoining.  Divorce is unjoining.

Does Jesus answer a question in verses 4-6 that the Pharisees did 
not ask in verse 3?  No.  They were asking about divorce.  Jesus 
answers about divorce.  They try to defend their question in 
verse 7 (to paraphrase), ‘But Moses said we could!’.  Jesus then 
explains why Moses allowed divorce in verses 8 (Israelites’ 
hardness of heart), states that is not the way God intended from 
the beginning, and then in verse 9 states God’s intention from 
the beginning concerning divorce.

Now, why would this conversation be about divorce all the way 
through, and at the conclusion Jesus begin speaking of separation 
(non divorce)? The only reason is so Robert can prove his theory.  
His theory rests on this, and his foundation is shifting sand.

So Robert, please address this:

1. Did God allow remarriage after separation if the wife/husband 
was guilty of fornication?
2. Under the Old Law, would a man be allowed to marry another 
woman no matter what was going on with his first wife?
3. Is there any indication women were ever allowed to have more 
than one husband in the Old Testament?
4. If Jesus is speaking only about separation in verse 9 of 
Matthew 19, isn’t he changing what God allowed, i.e. polygamy in 
that a man could be married to many women?

On the other hand, if apoluo (put away) refers to a divorce, then 
Matthew 19:3-9 makes sense as a context and dealing with the same 
subject. Verse 9 makes sense in the sacredness of marriage and 
the idea that God wants one man with one woman for life, with the 
exception of the innocent party being allowed to remarry after 
divorcing their spouse for fornication. 

It all fits and make sense if apoluo means divorce in these 
passages. None of it makes sense if apoluo means to separate.

Brian Galloway