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

Waters seems to be confused now about what he believes Apoluo 
means.  He states 
I have not said Apoluo “always means to be separated.

Then he said, 
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.  

Well, which is it, Robert?  Does it mean separation or not?  

Then Robert attempts to misconstrue something I said.  He states 
that I said, “The sending away is part of the divorce, not two 
separate things.”  Then he believes that ended the debate.  I 
guess he wishes that, for then he could go home thinking he 
proved apoluo means a separation, when he has never shown why it 
does not mean a divorce.  What I stated above is that a part of 
getting a divorce is that people cease being a couple.  They no 
longer practice the partnership that marriage involves.  Of 
course two people separate when they divorce.  That is part of 
divorcing.  But Robert is claiming that apoluo is a separation 
apart from or separate from a divorce.  Unfortunately, that is 
not in the word in the context used in Matthew 19.

Robert seems to have difficulties realizing that several actions 
occur when one divorces, all of which are part of the divorce.  
For example, someone tells me, 1) my wife and I decided to end 
our marriage, and 2) we filed divorce papers.  Have they simply 
separated?  No.  They have divorced.  There were two things done, 
and it could be broadened out to a number of things that must be 
done.  Basically, two people decided to end a marriage and make 
that decision legal.  This is a far cry from Robert saying Apoluo 
simply means a separation, but not a divorce.

Robert keeps going back to the ASV and uses circular reasoning, 
attempting to state that because the ASV means put away, it is 
nor referring to a divorce.  As I will show in just a moment, put 
away is synonymous with divorce. So the ASV is correct and Robert 
has proven nothing.

Robert states Jesus is not discussing the putting away of a 
spouse in Matthew 19:9, but instead is referring to “a case where 
the marriage itself is unlawful and is therefore unscriptural.”  
This is a good example of how Robert handles texts.  You, the 
reader, look in Matthew 19 and see where there is any indication 
Jesus is speaking of an unlawful marriage.  Let’s look again at 
the context from the ASV, since Robert approves of this 
translation.  In the context, Jesus states that what God has 
joined together, let not man put asunder.  What does God join 
together?  People in marriage.  That is the only thing under 
consideration.  In verse 7, they reply asking about the divorce 
they say Moses commanded. Still talking about what God joined 
together.  In verse 8, Jesus states it was because their hardness 
of heart that Moses suffered (not commanded) the putting away 
(still referring to what God joined together).  And then we have 
verse 9.  Robert, what else could Jesus be talking about.  You 
would have him playing Ping-Pong with this topic, but he is not.  
There is not only NO indication verse 9 speaks of an unlawful 
marriage, but every indication he speaks of a lawful marriage.    

Then I find it amazing that Robert glorifies the New American 
Bible (whatever that is), because it translates poineia as 
“unlawful marriage”, but the same verse translates apoluo as 
DIVORCE.  

Now, we might as, what does poineia mean?  Robert again shows his 
habit of redefining words to fit what he wants.  Thayer 
translates Poineia as “illicit sexual intercourse in general.”  
This would be as compared to a specific type of poineia 
(fornication) such as adultery which is illicit sexual 
intercourse in which one who is married is defiled.  So, the 
translators of the New American Bible have done what the New 
American Standard Bible has done, they have watered down what 
fornication is all about.

Robert states that Jesus is not teaching polygamy.  But if apoluo 
means a mere separation and not a divorce, then Jesus would have 
to be teaching that, for if my wife commits fornication, I merely 
have to separate from her, marry someone else (and now be married 
to two women), based on Robert’s definition of apoluo.

Robert then states that Jesus is not allowing women to be married 
to more than one husband at a time. But if his definition of 
apoluo (separation) is correct), then Mark 10:12 teaches just 
that.  

Robert has attempted to redefine apoluo and porneia to fit his 
theory, now he tries to redefine adultery.  Robert states, 
“adultery is an act of unfaithfulness or breach of contract.”  
Robert, that is very vague.  The word adultery is much more 
specific than that.  The word ‘adultery’ comes from the greek 
word ‘moixaomai’ which literally means “to defile a married 
woman.  That greek word is a form of moixaw which Thayer’s Greek 
lexicon defines as to have unlawful intercourse with another’s 
wife.  Even Kittles Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 
states that a man is under an obligation of fidelity to his wife, 
sexual freedom being denied, and that adultery is when he engages 
in sexual intercourse with a strange women.

Robert then tries to make it that women allowed their husbands to 
commit adultery with handmaids and slaves.  Robert forgets, these 
were among these men’s wives. God allowed polygamy in the Old 
Testament from the standpoint of men.  They did not commit 
adultery with the handmaids they were married to.  It is not adultery if the two people are married.

Robert states that adultery was not the only valid reason for 
divorce.  Under the Old Law, he is correct.  That is what 
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is all about, and is what Jesus is changing in 
this passage.  In fact, Kittel’s TDNT states concerning the word 
for adultery, that in the NT, the woman is exalted to the same 
dignity as her husband, and “is a life-long fellowship of the 
partners.  Only thus does it actualise the ideal intended in 
creation (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:8).  On this ground Jesus 
rejects the provisions of the Law and the scribes concerning 
divorce of the wife under the legal form of a bill of 
divorcement.  This is in conflict with the will of God (Matthew 
19:6ff.)  For this reason the remarriage of a man after divorcing 
his wife, or the remarrying of a divorced woman, is tantamount to 
adultery (Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11f; Luke 16:18).”  Robert may 
not know much about biblical word research (based on his 
arguments), but the 12 volume set of Kittel’s is considered to be 
the best work by a number of scholars in defining and explaining 
what Greek words meant in the New Testament.

Robert asks if permanent separation would be wrong.  Robert, 
based on 1 Cor. 7, one would be doing wrong because they can’t 
fulfill their responsibilities of marriage, unless the 
nonChristian spouse leaves the Christian spouse, in which case 
she can do nothing about it.  Not, this has nothing to do with 
this debate, but you seemed to want an answer.

Then Robert makes an argument comparing the official performing 
the ceremony to God who joins together.  Robert, the official 
does not join two people together.  God does.  Yes, I do believe 
God is the only one who can unjoin.  Men cannot make God do what 
he will not.  But that begs the question, for separation is not 
unjoining to begin with.  Separation is not what apoluo is 
referring to in Matthew 19:1-9. And interestingly, Robert states 
that he agrees that separation is not unjoining, divorce is.  

Then Robert states that “Chorizo” means separate.  Robert, wasn’t 
it you who said that if apoluo meant divorce, why would God also 
use the word apostolion? Well, if your argument is valid (which 
it is not), would that not apply with chorizo and apoluo as well?

Robert asks, 
Is it wrong to separate permanently from your wife?
  
My answer:  If my wife leaves me and I have nothing to do with 
it, then my being separated would not be wrong, (but it would be 
for her).  But any other type of voluntary separation would not 
allow me to fulfill my responsibilities as a husband, and thus would be wrong.

Then Robert claims that in 1 Cor. 7:11, the word chorizo merely 
means separate.  Robert, I agree.  There is no reason for 
divorce, and divorce never occurs here.  I’m not sure what this 
has to do with our discussion, which is probably why I did not 
respond earlier.

Then Robert states 
Brian is 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.  

Robert, you need to read the texts more closely.  In Deuteronomy 
24, if a man chooses not to remain married to his wife, he may 
divorce her.  Nothing about a separation and no commandment.  The 
Pharisees, not Jesus, said Moses commanded.  When Jesus replied 
he only replied that Moses suffered.  (See Matthew 19:7-8, ASV).

Then Robert gets back on the tired argument that Jesus could not 
be disagreeing with them for they did not react.  Look in Matthew 
23.  Jesus disagrees with them on a number of things and they did 
not object strongly.  Perhaps they had no grounds to object on.

Robert states that Moses suffered polygamy.  Robert, that is not 
what Moses suffered.  Polygamy had been going on at least back as 
far as Abraham.  Moses suffered divorce.  That’s what Jesus said 
in Matthew 19:8.

What did God hate in Mal. 2:16?  Not adultery (although God hates 
adultery).  He hated putting away or divorce.  And he still hates 
divorce.

Interestingly, Robert could find no scripture allowing women to 
have more than one husband.  But his definition of apoluo states 
they can.

I am affirming that in Matthew 19:9, apoluo refers to a divorce.  
I have shown in the context that this must be what Jesus is 
referring to.  In this affirmation, I am going to do two things: 
first look at the word “apoluo” from reputable and proven 
sources, and look at how the word is used in the Bible.

Many use Strong’s Greek dictionary of the New Testament, found in 
their exhaustive concordance, probably because of its ease of 
use.  For Apoluo, the following definition is given:  “to free 
fully, relieve, release, dismiss, let die, pardon, or divorce.”  
Each of those definitions is not referring to a mere separation, 
but the releasing of a covenant.  A divorce.  Something that is 
permanent.  Separation is not permanent.  

Now, I don’t use Strong’s much, because it is not viewed as a 
serious source by scholars.  Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon has 
been around for a long time and is viewed as a reliable and 
serious source.  Thayer points our that apoluo comes from two 
words: apo meaning from and luo meaning to loose.  So apoluo 
means to loose from.  In a relationship, when is something 
loosed?  When they are divorce.  Separation looses nothing.  
Divorce looses or frees from the marriage.  Now, notice the 
definitions Thayer gives: to loose from, sever by loosening, 
undo, to set free, to let go, to release a debtor.  All of these 
is far more serious than a separation.  These end something.  But 
Thayer goes on, “used of divorce, to dismiss from the house, to 
repudiate.”  Odd Robert, Thayer saw the dismissing and the 
divorcing as being the same thing.

As noted in my response to Robert, but I will note again, 
Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament is perhaps 
the most comprehensive and weighty source accepted for its 
credibility.  This dictionary stated, “the woman is exalted to 
the same dignity as her husband, and “is a life-long fellowship 
of the partners.  Only thus does it actualise the ideal intended 
in creation (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:8).  On this ground Jesus 
rejects the provisions of the Law and the scribes concerning 
divorce of the wife under the legal form of a bill of 
divorcement.  This is in conflict with the will of God (Matthew 
19:6ff.)  For this reason the remarriage of a man after divorcing 
his wife, or the remarrying of a divorced woman, is tantamount to 
adultery (Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11f; Luke 16:18).”  In fact, 
Kittel takes the word a step farther and shows the origin of the 
word goes back to louw, apolouw and loutron.  These are words 
used for a cleansing or washing.  In Acts 22:16, when Paul was 
told to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins, the word 
wash is from apoluo.  Now are were merely separating from our 
sins (in a way we can be reunited with them, which mere 
separation leaves open to us?  No. When Christ’s blood cleanses, 
I am divorce from my sins.  I will never wear the guilt of those 
sins again.  I am freed from those sins.

Every proven and reliable source on the greek language mentions 
divorce as what apoluo means.  Robert states I am following man’s 
traditions in believing that.  No Robert. I am following the 
context of God’s word, and the way the best lexicons and 
dictionaries define and explain the word.  You are the one 
arguing in the face of that evidence.

Let me suggest that in looking at the English term, ‘put away’, a 
look in the Old Testament will find Robert has NO support to back 
up his theory either. If you do a phrase search in the KJV Old 
Testament, you will find the phrase, 'put away' some 36 times. 
Only 5 of these times refer to wives. The other 31 times refer to 
idols, or various types of sin. Now, one could ask the question, 
is God telling Israel to simply separate themselves from sin and 
idols (temporarily), or does he want them to put away sin and 
idols in the sense of divorcing it, permanently? Anyone who 
carefully reads God's word will conclude God wants us to divorce 
permanently from idols and grievous sin. So, God is using 'put 
away' and 'divorce' in an interchangeable way.

Now, notice the five verses in which put away is used to refer to 
a relationship.

Leviticus 21:7 They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or 
profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her 
husband: for he is holy unto his God.

Ezra 10:3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with out God to 
put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according 
to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the 
commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.

Ezra 10:19 And they gave their hands that they would put away 
their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock 
for their trespass.

Ezekiel 44:22 Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, 
nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed 
of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.

Jeremiah 3:1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go 
from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her 
again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted? But thou hast 
played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith 
the Lord. 

Now, let's look at these passages. First, compare Jeremiah 3:1 
(above) to Deuteronomy 24:1-2.

When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it shall be, if 
she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some 
unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of 
divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his 
house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and 
be another man's wife.

Verses 3 and 4 point out that if the second husband divorces her, 
she cannot return to the first. Now, compare that to Jeremiah 
3:1. Aren't these two verses saying and referring to exactly the 
same thing? Yet two separates words are used. Jeremiah speaks of 
putting away, and Moses of divorcing. They are talking about the 
same thing because the expressions are two ways of saying the 
same thing.

Look at the other verses. Ezekiel 44:22 and Leviticus 21:7 are 
speaking of priests who were held to a higher standard of purity 
than were the rest of the people. They could not marry one who 
was divorced or even one who was widowed, unless she was the 
widow of a former priest. Only maidens (which suggests no sexual 
relationship - virgins) could be married.

And Ezra 10 speaks of both priests and non-priests who had 
married foreign women. It was an unlawful marriage in God's eyes. 
But they did not just separate from them, they ended the 
marriage, putting them away, separatingthemselves from them by 
divorcing them.

And folks, that is it. Those are the only passages in the Old 
Testament which speak of a woman being put away. Nowhere is there 
any indication that this was a separate act from divorcing them. 
Where has Robert come up with his theory? Out of his desperation 
to prove what he wants the Bible to say, he made it up. Well, 
Robert, what you think holds no weight with me. What the Bible 
says holds every weight with me. And the Bible does not agree 
with your theory. So your theory unfortunately is just a figment 
of your imagination.

So, we have the following:

1. The context of Matthew 19:1-9 shows apoluo to mean a divorce.  
If it means a separation, when Jesus is promoting polygamy both 
with a man and many wives, and a woman with many husbands.

2. The word itself (apoluo) is defined, described, and translated 
by those sources recognized as authorities with the greek 
language as referring to a setting free, a loosing from, or a 
divorce.

3. The way the phrase ‘put away’ is used in the Old Testament 
refers to a divorce, not a mere separation.

Again, I will suggest, Robert needs this word (as well as 
adultery and fornication) to mean differently than what the Bible 
teaches so he can prove his theory on marriage, divorce, and 
remarriage.  Robert has stated he has changed his view many times 
on this.  From the evidence, Robert, it may be time for one more 
change, hopefully this time by just accepting what the Bible 
says.

Brian Galloway