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

Webmaster's note:  Links given herein will open in a separate
browser window.


Robert Waters here, with greetings to my honorable opponent 
and to all readers.

Brian wrote: Affirmative #1

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 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. 
 
rw My opponent has had his opportunities to show my position to 
be error, but he failed to do so. Now he has the responsibility 
to prove his own position.  That Brian is responding as if he is 
still in the negative, trying to defeat my position, is 
interesting.  Judging from the lack of an effective offense it 
appears that things are looking rather hopeless for the visiting 
team.

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. 
 
rw A brother who knows the truth on this subject (which is the 
same as I have rather recently learned) wrote me after I sent my 
first affirmative on this debate.  He encouraged me to overwhelm 
the reader with evidence.  That is what I have done.  Yet Brian’s 
response is to complain about the number of PAGES.  Thus his 
strategy is, “Since I can’t deal with the arguments I’ll 
discredit him by reminding the reader how many pages it took for 
him to present his evidence.”  Imagine a defense attorney, after 
the prosecution provides mountains of evidence proving his client 
guilty, saying, “But judge, look how many words he used and how 
much time it took for him to present this evidence.”  SIGH!

I have changed...a couple of times because I saw problems with my 
position and saw another position that did not have those 
problems.  I’m confident I will be staying with this one because 
the evidence is there to support it.  It has been tested and 
retested and has passed every test, which proves, beyond a 
reasonable doubt, its truthfulness.  Even men who have knowledge 
of the Greek are hard pressed to find anything with which to 
object regarding my position. David Willis (who purports to be 
strong in the Greek and who is determined to defend the core 
traditional position) thought long and hard about how he would 
defeat this position.  On Mars-list, he came up with one 
argument, set a trap, and promised that my position would be 
shown to be error.  I went for the bait, but his argument failed.  
Another brother who is known for his Greek studies said 
(regarding David's argument dealing with Joseph and Mary) I still 
have “wiggle room”. 

BG: 
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. 

 
rw My opponent is not being straight with the readers.  I have 
not said Apoluo “always means to be separated”.  I have said that 
it does not mean “divorce” in Jesus’ teaching on the matter under 
discussion, and that fact should be becoming obvious to all 
readers.  What I have tried to communicate is the idea that when 
one merely “puts away” his spouse the action amounts to 
“separation”, and it obviously does.  Brian gave up the debate 
when he admitted that there were two parts to a scriptural 
divorce. 

The following is a quote from Brian’s December 29th response to 
my second affirmative: To my question… 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 responded… 
The sending away is PART (emphasis mine rw) of the divorce, not 
two separate things.”

For all practical purposes, the debate was over when Brian wrote 
the comment above. Nevertheless, he apparently feels obligated to 
do his best to defend the proposition he signed, which may not be 
a bad thing. I think I would take advantage of an opportunity to 
promote truth and go ahead and tell the truth. But he is helping 
by continuing…  At any rate, Apoluo (put away) is the first 
“PART” and Apostasion (divorce) is the other “PART”.  You can do 
one or the other, and some do (for various reasons as pointed out 
in my affirmative), but without doing BOTH there is no scriptural 
divorce (Mt 19:7).  My opponent has not given a response to this 
point, and I see no pressing reason for him to (other than to 
join with me in teaching the truth) – WE APPARENTLY AGREE.   

“Put away” and “divorce” are obviously two different things.  The 
most respected authority, the ASV, translated apoluo as “put 
away”, and “put away,” in English, is NOT equal to divorce.  
Following a divorce proceeding, it is expected that a separation 
will take place, but “putting away” ONLY amounts to nothing but a 
separation.  Thus, divorce papers + separation = scriptural and 
legal divorce (Deut 24:1; Mt19:7).

Since Brian presented no evidence to back up any of his three 
“points” (above) I will wait until he does so, since I have 
already addressed these matters in my affirmatives.  My opponent 
has stated that he will provide his “proof”(s) in his last 
affirmative.  That is very strange.  If he has proof, why does he 
want to wait until his last installment to present it?  He will 
not then have an opportunity to respond to my reply.  Maybe that 
is why he is saving it till last, so he will not have to reply. 

BG continued: 
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).   
 
rw No, Robert did not forget about the phrase “except for 
fornication” and my position is the only one that explains it in 
a way that makes sense and is hermeneutically sound.  In the 
text, Jesus is not discussing the “putting away” of a spouse 
because he/she DID something that could be included in the term 
“porneia”.  That term includes numerous things which neither 
Brian nor anyone else will accept as being a reason to divorce a 
spouse.  The common practice, which Brian defends, is that the 
spouse has to be guilty of ADULTERY (sexual), and the “bill of 
divorce” must so indicate.  Nevertheless, what the “exception 
clause” refers to is a case where the marriage itself is unlawful 
and is therefore unscriptural, for in such cases fornication is 
being committed just as if they are not married, for indeed they 
are not.  Thus, Jesus was saying to the Pharisees, “You men who 
have sent your wives out of the house and married another, unless 
the relationship was fornication, are guilty of adultery against 
the woman you put away" (Mt 19:9; Mk 10:11).

Mt 5:32 – “But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless 
the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and 
whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (New American 
Bible).

The translators of the NAB apparently understood the "exception 
clause" as I have explained above, i.e., it refers to an unlawful 
marriage. In such cases, a divorce is not necessary. All that is 
necessary is to "separate" or "put away".

BG: 
a. Is Jesus teaching polygamy? 
 
rw No, but neither was he teaching against it.

BG: 
b. Does Robert want us to believe Jesus is allowing women to be 
married to more than one husband at a time? 
 
rw No.

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. 
 
rw The above is not true. I explained this in my comments above.

BG: 
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).   
 
rw Moses “suffered” them to “put away” their wives (which 
actually resulted in them being married to more than one wife) 
which is to say, they were not punished for it.  In addition, men 
clearly had more than one wife in the household in some 
instances.  The false concept that “adultery” in O.T. times was 
only a sexual sin always followed by spiritual or physical death, 
or the separation of a marriage, is a hindrance to brethren in 
leaning the truth regarding remarriage.  That adultery is an act 
of unfaithfulness or breach of covenant is apparent from the 
teachings of Jesus in Mark 10:11 (“against her”).  Under the Law 
in effect, it evidently was not a breach of covenant for the 
husband to have sex with a “handmaid” or “concubine” – it was a 
common practice.  Did men of faith commit “adultery” against 
their true wives because of the “mix”?   Perhaps having 
concubines could be called adultery, but it was evidently 
something that was permitted.  Therefore, adultery, if with 
consent of the wife, which is what took place when a man had more 
than one wife, evidently was not something about which to get “up 
in arms”.  This may help in understanding why the Pharisees did 
not charge Jesus with changing the Law.  They understood that 
polygamy was allowed, and they were unable to respond regarding 
their abuse of their true Hebrew wives.  Incidentally, Abraham 
dismissed Hagar the Egyptian handmaid (Ge 21:9-14). It was not a 
husband/wife relationship.  I know of no instance in the O.T. 
where a man of God dismissed his true wife, or even divorced her, 
for that matter. 

Note the following from a highly respected source:

"From what has been said, it is clear that adultery was not the 
only valid reason for divorce. Besides, the word adultery had a 
peculiar significance in Jewish law, which recognized polygamy 
and concubinage as legitimate. Thus a Hebrew might have two or 
more wives or concubines, and might have intercourse with a slave 
or bondwoman, even if married, without being guilty of the crime 
of adultery (Lev 19:20), for adultery, according to Jewish law, 
was possible only when a man dishonored the "free wife" of a 
Hebrew (Lev 20:10 ff). International Standard Encyclopedia

BG: 
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? 
 
rw I refer the reader to my answer to the previous question.

BG: 
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. 
 
rw First, when I brought up the matter of separation (in my 
affirmative) and made a point regarding it, my opponent stated 
that it was not applicable to the proposition and declined to 
respond (see quote below). I am glad he now sees that it is 
applicable and has determined to discuss it.

[“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.”]

Indeed, man should not separate from his true wife, especially 
for the reasons for which some had been guilty – to marry 
another.  First, the idea that only God can unjoin is not 
biblical.  Certainly “let not” does not mean “cannot”, and I 
appreciate that Brian has not tried to say that it does.  If only 
God (who “joins” a couple) can “unjoin” on the grounds that he 
did the joining, then by the same reasoning the official who 
joined them by performing the ceremony would have to do the 
unjoining.  Of course, there is no biblical or legal support for 
either.

My opponent says, “A separation is not unjoining” but “Divorce is 
unjoining”.   I agree with the above.  Separation does not unjoin 
or end a marriage, as does divorce, and this supports MY 
position, not Brian’s.  This is evidently true because of the 
meaning of “put asunder”.  “Put asunder,” from “chorizo”, means 
separate.  In my affirmative, I asked my opponent if he believed 
that it was right or wrong to separate.  I believe his only reply 
was that it was not sin if by "consent", which was something I 
pointed out. Well, if he had truly answered he would have 
probably said something else that would have been tantamount to 
“throwing in the towel.”  

Below is what Strong’s Lexicon states:

[Grk. 5563] chorizo (kho-rid'-zo)

from 5561; to place room between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go 
away:--depart, put asunder, separate.

Question:   Is it wrong to separate permanently from your wife?   
A simply “yes” will do.  “No,” or more “observing the Passover” 
will not do. 

In my affirmative I wrote: 
Again we see that Brian has divorce on the brain.  Everywhere 
that separation is mentioned he would have you to think it is 
divorce that is under consideration.  Brian, do you not know that 
CHORIZO is the word for separate, or one of them?  It is the word 
found in 1 Cor 7:11.  Have you not been guilty of teaching that 
CHORIZO means divorce and that this passage refers to divorce?

My opponent did not respond to any of the above.  Did you wonder 
why?

BG 
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. 
 
rw My opponent asserts that the Pharisees were asking about 
“divorce” and that Jesus answers about divorce.  That is simply 
not true.  Apoluo is the word in question and it means, “put 
away”, which in English is not “divorce”.  Brian, you have said 
your proposition will be easy to prove.  So, why not prove it 
first and then your comments above will not been seen as baseless 
assertions.  Where is your proof?  In my three affirmatives, I 
provided numerous evidences that indicate that divorce is not a 
proper translation of apoluo.  Where is your evidence to the 
contrary?  The new versions?  Lexicons?  Present them or give up 
the debate.  Of course, the “one man” authorities will carry no 
weight because you have dismissed the one-man translations that 
rendered apoluo as “put away” as being unacceptable.

After Jesus’ initial response the Pharisees go to the subject of 
divorce, but in verse 9 Jesus goes back to their original 
question.  Actually, in expressing displeasure with the “putting 
away” Jesus was teaching against divorce as well, because “put 
away” was part of divorce and if you don’t “put away” and don’t 
provide the divorce papers you would not be guilty of a wrong 
against your wife or God.

Note that Brian is still trying to hang on to the idea that Moses 
merely allowed divorce.  It was the “putting away” that was 
“suffered” but the divorce was “commanded”. (See my answer to 
question # 2 below.)  My opponent will continue to have problems 
with the truth until he is willing to accept obvious facts.

BG: 
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. 
 
rw It is not about divorce all the way through.  It begins with 
“put away” and ends with “put away”.  My opponent cannot get it 
out of his head that “put away” and “divorce” are different terms 
having completely different meanings.  

If Jesus was guilty of changing the Law (which allowed divorce), 
rather than explaining it, and taught against divorce He would 
have certainly been met with great opposition. The Pharisees were 
looking for that kind of a response, but did not get it; 
therefore, the record does not show a reaction to that type of 
response from Jesus. Which means one thing: Jesus did not go 
there.

BG: 
So Robert, please address this:

1. Did God allow remarriage after separation if the wife/husband 
was guilty of fornication? 
 
rw In the case where the relationship was not a scriptural 
marriage, which is what I understand you to be inquiring about, 
the separation should take place and BOTH could then remarry.  
They could remarry because they had no spouse.  Paul gave the 
answer for where the situation was applicable to Christians:  The 
“unmarried” could marry, which would help them to “avoid 
fornication” (1Cor7:2; 8,9).

BG: 
2. Under the Old Law, would a man be allowed to marry another 
woman no matter what was going on with his first wife? 
 
rw To be pleasing to God men needed to be faithful to their wife.  
They were allowed to have more than one wife, which is what Moses 
“suffered”.  It was the adultery committed against the wives when 
men “put them out of the house” that was what “God hateth” (Mal 
2:16).  Jesus said they were committing adultery against them (Mk 
10:11). Those who think the definition of adultery only involves 
sex will have trouble seeing this point.  (See the link to my web 
site below on the meaning of adultery.) 
Definition of Adultery

BG: 
3. Is there any indication women were ever allowed to have more 
than one husband in the Old Testament? 
 
rw In a recent private letter, someone stated to me that there 
was an instance in the O.T. where a woman had more than one 
husband, but he did not provide the scripture and I have been 
unable to find it.  Thus, I’ll say if the Scriptures speak of 
such I cannot provide the reference.

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? 
 
rw No, he is merely stating what the facts were. Had the 
Pharisees understood Him to be saying what is commonly taught 
today they would have at least included it in their charges 
against him at the trial.  They did not.

BG 
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.   
 
rw First, I have established that “put away” does not refer to a 
divorce – not in Greek or English.  Second, my position is not 
against the idea that God wants “one man one woman for life.”  
Rather, that is part of my position.  Nevertheless, one cannot 
justify “forbidding marriage” for those who have no marriage on 
the grounds that to do otherwise goes against “the sacredness of 
marriage”.  This doctrine has truly been the devil’s doctrine.  
It has divided brethren, broken up legitimate marriages and 
homes, driven faithful children of God away from the church and 
caused untold numbers to reject the invitation to be cleansed by 
the blood.

BG:
It all fits and make sense if apoluo means divorce in these 
passages.  None of it makes sense if apoluo means to separate. 
 
rw The above is almost laughable, for Brian has it completely 
backwards.  Apoluo absolutely does not mean divorce and there can 
be no doubt about it.  

Brian concludes by quoting the following: 
Jude 1:3 ...ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was 
once delivered unto the saints.  
 
rw I am contending earnestly for the faith.  My opponent is 
earnestly contending for human tradition.  But I'll have to say 
that he is being much more civil in his efforts than some have 
been allowed to do on some Internet lists. 

Brotherly, Robert Waters