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.


Greetings to my opponent and to interested readers:

We are discussing the meaning of “put away”.  

I am delighted to stand for the truth in denying the above 
proposition.  Rather than merely seek to prove his position, my 
opponent again has stated that I am desperate to prove my 
position on MDR and that I just made up the idea that “put away” 
does not mean divorce (More on this later).  First, I have been 
determined to learn the truth on this issue and to help others 
see it.  Since neither myself nor anyone on either side of my 
family, or my wife’s family, has been divorced the assigning of 
motive by my opponent is not only unbrotherly but also 
judgmental, unjust and inaccurate.  

In his first affirmative, my opponent mostly remained in the 
negative – trying once again to defeat the truth I presented in 
my three affirmative installments.  It is interesting that in his 
FIRST affirmative he promised to provide proof to support his 
position in his third and final affirmative.  I made note of the 
plan and stated that I suspected that the reason was so that he 
would not have to respond to my comments regarding his “proof”.  
But we see now that he has gone ahead and provided some quotes 
from sources, which is evidently the “proof” he first thought of 
withholding until later.

In this installment, the reader will see:  that according to my 
opponent’s own remarks, his “proof” is unreliable; that he has 
ignored or slighted valid arguments I have made; that he is 
inconsistent; and that his basic objection to my position is that 
it is contrary to what he has learned.  

My opponent actually presented some passages this time, but they 
are all passages that I have already shown to be supportive of 
the proposition I affirmed.

When Brian wrote: 
The sending away is part of the divorce…

he gave up any hopes of proving his position, because his 
affirming his proposition is contingent on him proving that 
“sending away” is the divorce.    

Throughout this discussion, Brian has maintained that APOLUO does 
not mean “separate”.  I have not contended that “put away” and 
“separate” is exactly the same, but his effort to teach the 
reader that it does not amount to separation is met with a very 
real problem.  You see, he claims that APOLUO means divorce.  
Here is his problem: the word from which divorce is translated is 
APOSTASION, and a definition given for it is, “something 
separative”.  Putting away results in separation, and providing a 
“bill of divorce” results in separation, but for some reason we 
must not accept that “put away” amounts to separation, yet it is, 
according to Brian, divorce.  Thus, it is clear that my opponent 
holds a very convoluted position.  

Now to my opponent’s comments: 
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?  

rw Clearly when one is merely put away (or sent away) without 
divorce papers, they are separated.  Obviously, “put away” and 
divorce are not exactly the same, as I have explained in a 
previous installment.  One would make no sense if he said to his 
wife, “I’m going to separate you”, however, if he did send her 
away the result would be a separation.  Now what is difficult 
about that?  It is as simple as 2+2=4.

“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.  

rw Robert didn’t misconstrue what Brian said.  He made a 
statement that caused his ship to begin to sink, and he then 
tries to plug the hole.  But it is too late – the ship is already 
sunken.  

Let us take a close look as what he said.  He said, "The sending 
away is part of the divorce, not two separate things."  First, 
Brian evidently recognizes that “sending away” is equivalent to 
“put away” from the gk word apoluo.  Second, he clearly admits 
that there are TWO parts to a divorce.   He states, “Of course 
two people separate when they divorce.  That is part of 
divorcing.”  What he fails to acknowledge is the simple fact that 
ONE without the OTHER is not a scriptural divorce.  You see, I 
gave the illustration of people separating without divorcing and 
divorcing without separating, but Brian does not want to go 
there.  Nevertheless, without dealing with the arguments that 
expose his position he continues to assert that “put away”, i.e., 
send away, means both “put away” AND divorce.  But the only 
“proof” he has is based upon circular reasoning – the traditional 
belief that is based upon a misunderstanding and misapplication 
of Jesus’ teaching.

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.  

rw Come on Brian, face reality!  I am the one that started 
emphasizing the “parts” involved in divorce.  Can you not see 
your inconsistency?  Are there “parts” to a divorce or is it just 
the “putting away”?  You can’t have it both ways.  

In your example above, when they filed the papers they may or may 
not have been separated.  They could have completed the divorce 
but not separated – continued to live together, which would not 
have been a scriptural divorce according to Deut 24:1-4.  

In my previous response, I wrote: “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).”

How did Brian deal with the above?  He continued to ignore the 
facts and observations I made that relate to this discussion.

Robert keeps going back to the ASV and uses circular reasoning, 
attempting to state that because the ASV means put away, it is 
not 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.  

rw I ask the reader to read what I said and consider Brian’s 
accusation that I’m using circular reasoning:  “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). 

I have shown from various sources that in English “put away” does 
not mean divorce.  My opponent agrees with me that the ASV is 
correct.  Now all he needs to do is make the proper application 
and make his teaching conform to that truth, rather than try to 
make it say “divorce”.  Brian really likes to make the “circular 
reasoning” assertion, so much so that it makes one wonder if he 
is not desperate for something to say.  There is no circular 
reasoning in my argument.  The ASV is correct, the versions that 
render apoluo as divorce are wrong, and there is no possible way 
for Brian to show that what he has admitted to be only “part” of 
divorce is the same as the divorce itself. 

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.  


rw If tradition is your authority and you cannot consider 
anything else, then to you there is “every indication He speaks 
of a lawful marriage”.  However, to those who are determined to 
learn and obey the truth is it not hard to see that Jesus’ 
teachings were in accord with the Law under which he lived and 
obeyed, which allowed divorce.  That Brian refuses to see is 
clear from the fact that he refuses to accept what Jesus clearly 
said.  My opponent keeps using “put away” in place of divorce, 
which only serves to promote confusion – it will not change the 
true meaning. 

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.  

rw I merely pointed out that the NAB properly translated porneia 
as “unlawful marriage”, which is what I believe to be the correct 
translation.  I also pointed out in the same paragraph that they 
missed it in their translation of apoluo.  The reader will find 
no comment from me that indicate I was glorifying the NAB, as 
Brian falsely asserts.

Now, we might ask, 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.  

rw First, let us fully understand what we are talking about here.  
We are talking about the exception clause, “except it be for 
porneia”, i.e., “except where the marriage is “unlawful”.  Jesus’ 
teaching is very clear, it makes sense and it does not require 
doing things, or requiring things, that are contrary to other 
clear teachings.  In Mat 19:9, Jesus was saying, If you send away 
your wife and marry another you commit adultery, unless the 
marriage (with the woman you sent away) was unlawful.  This 
concept is in perfect harmony with the command of God and the 
subsequent practice of the priests who “separated” themselves 
from the foreign wives.  Note the passage below:

Ezr 10:11 – “Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of 
your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from 
the people of the land, and from the strange wives.”

Note Strong’s Definition for the word “separate”: [Heb. 914] 
badal  (baw-dal')

a primitive root; to divide (in variation senses literally or 
figuratively, separate, distinguish, differ, select, etc.):-- 
(make, put) difference, divide (asunder), (make) separate (self, 
-ation), sever (out), X utterly.

[Heb. 915] badal  (baw-dawl')

from 914; a part:--piece.

My opponent’s plan to get around the fact that that all that was 
required of the priests (regarding their illicit “wives”) was 
separation is to convince himself that separation and divorce is 
the same thing.  Separation and divorce obviously are different 
words with different meanings.  My opponent would have you 
believe that the priests divorced their wives because in verse 19 
they talked about “putting away”.  Well, we have seen that the 
priests were commanded to separate from their illicit wives and 
that “put away” was stated as what they intended to do. 
Therefore, “separate” and “put away” amount to the same thing and 
it is not “divorce”, which has a different definition.  [Ezr 
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.]

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.  

rw First, you do not HAVE to do anything if your wife commits 
fornication.  Second, you not only have no argument here you show 
that you either are incapable of understanding or do understand 
but are continuing to endeavor to create confusion.  Your 
argument is only valid if your proposition is true (which is that 
“circular reasoning” you keep charging me with).  Can you not 
even for the sake of argument see another’s position?  I 
explained the exception clause above.  For one to be able to 
marry another he must do more than “put away” – there must 
actually be a divorce, which my opponent has admitted to be 
composed of TWO parts and it has been devastating to his effort 
to prove his proposition. 

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.  

rw My opponent has no argument here.

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.

rw If my opponent would quote me rather than make assertions as 
to what I supposedly said or meant, it would be helpful.  
Adultery was not a valid reason for a legal divorce in the O.T. 
and it is not a reason for it in the N.T.  There was a law for 
dealing with those who would commit adultery with another man’s 
wife (Lev 10:20).  Therefore, Deuteronomy is not about divorcing 
because of adultery and consequently the conversation Jesus had 
with the Pharisees was not about divorcing for adultery. It was 
about “putting away” and marrying another without divorcing, 
which resulted in adultery.  The men were committing adultery 
against “her” (Mark 10:11).

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.  

rw My opponent has been trying to dodge the idea, or rather FACT, 
that there is such a thing as putting away (sending away) without 
there being a legal divorce, but we are making some progress.  He 
has now admitted that it is wrong to do a permanent separation 
and states that the reason is “responsibility” (1 Cor 7).  If 
Brian’s wife gets tired of him and sends him out of the house 
(apoluos him), in a situation that is a permanent separation, she 
sins in so doing.  If she marries another without completing the 
divorce by providing legal papers, she does that which the Lord 
taught against in Matt 19:9.  Thank you, Brian for finally 
answering the question.  Now that you have answered the question, 
every reader has to see that there is at least the possibility 
that Jesus was discussing men who were simply “putting away” 
there wives (which is what the text says) and marrying another 
without providing them with the “bill of divorcement”.  Since the 
“bill of divorcement” is obviously a requirement before the 
divorce can be considered valid or complete, the mere fact of one 
having simply put away his spouse cannot be considered anything 
more than a separation – like the one my opponent has finally 
admitted is sinful. 

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.  

rw First, the following is the argument I made to which Brian is 
responding: “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.”  

Of course, separation is not “unjoining”.  Nevertheless, my 
opponent is inconsistent here.  He wants to hold to the truth 
that “separation” is not divorce but continue to assert that when 
one “puts away” his spouse (which obviously results in 
separation) he has actually divorced the spouse.  In other words, 
Brian knows the truth but continues to assert that while apoluo 
is properly translated “put away” it does not mean what it says, 
but means “divorce”.  You cannot have it both ways, Brian.

So, are those preachers who say, “I tied the knot” just lying 
about it?  According to Brian the preacher was just there - he 
had nothing to do with the legal aspect of the marriage, but God 
witnessed and gave his consent, to the marriage, but somehow the 
marriage cannot be dissolved unless God says it is ok.  We have a 
problem here because the passage where my opponent would have you 
to believe that God says a marriage is NOT ok because a divorced 
person cannot marry, is not even talking about divorce – it is 
talking about adultery being committed by marrying another after 
simply separating.  Brian believes something that the Bible does 
not say and he would have you to believe it as well.  There is no 
biblical evidence that only God can unjoin.  It is purely 
assumption.  

In my previous response I wrote:

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.

rw I’m delighted that my opponent is giving some straight 
answers.  Previously I asked: “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?” 

Brian responds: 
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.

rw Here is what it has to do with our discussion: When brethren 
have tried to show that Jesus did not forbid marriage (as seen to 
be evil in 1 Tim 4:1-3) for one that had been divorced and that 
that theory contradicted Paul’s clear teaching, invariably 
opponents would bring up 1 Cor 7:11 and assert that this is an 
example of Paul forbidding one who had been divorced to marry.  
Well, as in the situation Jesus was discussing, there had not 
even been a divorce.  The separated couple was to remain as 
unmarried or in the state they were in; i.e., they were not to 
divorce or marry another.  No other interpretation allows the 
apostles’ words to be consistent or harmonious.  I am delighted that my opponent apparently agrees with me on the meaning of 
chorizo.  It may help others to see the truth if they can see the 
true meaning of certain passages that have been errantly used to 
support their position.  

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).”  

rw My opponent is the one that needs to read the text more 
closely.  First, it is not even debatable as to whether the 
giving of the “bill of divorce” was a command.  The text (ASV) 
says it is a command and Jesus said it was a command.  I provided 
the quote but Brian ignored it.  Here it is again: (Mark 10:3) – 
“And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?”  
Now, with it definitely established that the divorce was a 
command you have to wonder WHY God commanded it.  He did so 
because women were being “put away” (sent out of the house) and 
not being legally and scripturally released so as to marry 
another.  

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.

rw I agree with the above, there were no grounds to object to 
what Jesus really said. The Pharisees knew of what they were 
guilty. My point was that IF what Brian asserts that Jesus said 
were true they WOULD HAVE objected.  The reason they did not 
object was that Jesus did not say what Brian says He said.  In 
other words, the Pharisees did not understand Jesus to have said 
what Brian contends He said.

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.  

rw Moses suffered the “putting away”; i.e., he did not impose a 
penalty for it.  The result of putting away a legitimate wife and 
marrying another was polygamy (which can be adultery) regardless 
of how many women a man considered his wife.  I agree that 
polygamy was practiced as far back as Abraham, but I find no 
authorization for it in the scriptures. It was just “suffered”. 

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.  

rw I’m sure God hates divorce where one spouse, by divorcing the 
other, is acting treacherously, but what God said he hates is 
“putting away” – the practice that left women without a home, 
without means of support and without right to marry another.  (It 
was not that she could not marry another because she was not 
divorced for “adultery” it was because she was not divorced at 
all.)  Asserting that “put away” means divorce does not prove 
anything, Brian.  Where is your proof?  I’m willing to believe 
what the best translators (ASV, YLT etc.) tells me it says, and 
so is Brian, but he ADDS that it means divorce.  Of course, he 
needs it to mean divorce so he can show justification for his 
practice of breaking up marriages and imposing celibacy.

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

rw My definition of apoluo is “put away”, or send away, which 
amounts to or results in a separation, as I have proven.  Brian, 
you will have to explain how my definition states that women can 
have more than one husband.

Brian wrote: 
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.  

rw First, my opponent did not show from the context that Jesus 
was referring to divorce.  I truly believe that over 90% of the 
people who are reading or will read this debate understand that 
Jesus did not flatly contradict the teaching of the Old 
Testament.  My exegesis of the text differs markedly from Brian’s 
definition. The big difference is that his requires that Jesus 
transgressed the law by teaching contrary to it while he lived, 
whereas my exegesis allows that Jesus remained true to the Law 
under which he lived.

Brian says he is going to look at the word “apoluo” from 
reputable and proven sources”.  Now I wonder how he arrived at 
the conclusion that his sources are proven to be accurate on the 
matter in question.  I remind my opponent, and the reader, that 
when I quoted from various versions that were consistent in 
translating apoluo as “put away”, he Brian objected that 
most…were works of one man.  Brian stated, “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.”  
Of course, I emphasized that the rendering of a word or passage 
by the ASV is the strongest evidence that one can have, and it 
supports my position that apoluo means “put away”, rather than 
divorce.  Did Brian refute the above statement?  No, and he 
cannot because everyone knows the scholars of the ASV were true 
to the text and they agreed that apoluo means, “put away”.  Brian 
did consent that “put away” was correctly translated – he had to 
so do.  However, he then asserted that it means “divorce”.  
Nevertheless, I quoted from three English dictionaries regarding 
the meaning of “put away” and they did not mention divorce.  Of 
course, we who know the English language know that “put away” 
does not mean divorce and we do not use that term when referring 
to divorce, with the exception of those who have been deceived, 
or are attempting to deceive you, into believing that “apoluo” 
means divorce.  My opponent would now have you believe that 
apoluo means divorce because a work done by ONE MAN includes it 
in his definition. (Actually, at the end he says it is “used of 
divorce” by the Romans.)  He says that is “proof”.  What it 
proves to me is that the ONE MAN was simply another who failed to 
learn and teach the truth regarding who has a right to marry 
under the Christian dispensation.  The fact that one has 
exceptional knowledge of the original language does not guarantee 
he is going to draw proper conclusions on all doctrinal matters.

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.

rw Separation might not be permanent, but in a previous 
installment, I discussed a scenario where a man tells a woman, 
“We are through….” The relationship ends, though there was no 
legal divorce.  Thus, apoluo is used to mean, dismiss, send away, 
release etc. (See complete quote below.)  My opponent seems to 
think that a divorce is permanent but a separation cannot be 
permanent.  Well, that obviously is not true, because there are 
couples that separate permanently and there are couples who 
divorce and then later marry each other again.

[Grk. 630] apoluo (ap-ol-oo'-o)

from 575 and 3089; to free fully, i.e. (literally) relieve, 
release, dismiss (reflexively, depart), or (figuratively) let 
die, pardon or (specially) divorce:--(let) depart, dismiss, 
divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at 
liberty.

According to Strong, “put away” means “send” away.  The best 
scholars, who produced the ASV of 1901, did not think apoluo 
meant divorce in the texts under study, thus they translated it 
as “put away”.

“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.   

rw But Brian, you have admitted that apoluo is correctly 
translated by the ASV as “put away”.  You do not mention where 
Thayer talks about apoluo meaning, “send away” etc.  It does not 
matter anyway, because you have discounted works of “one man” as 
being any acceptable source of authority on the original 
language. 

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.  

rw Near the end of his entire list of definitions Thayer said, 
“Used of divorce.”  Vines says the same but inserts that it was 
among the Romans.  Thayer says apoluo means, “dismiss from the 
house, to repudiate”, and he is right…that is the way Jesus used 
the word.

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)."   

rw The above, written by “one man”, sounds very much like a 
commentary of one that holds the view that was originally set 
forth by Catholics: that marriage is a sacrament, that only God 
can unbind, and that one who has been divorced must be forbidden 
to marry.  I suppose the fact that all this sounds like what was 
forbidden by the apostle Paul (1 Tim 4:1-4) does not affect my 
opponent’s thinking regarding the “credibility” of his “one man” 
authority.

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.”  

rw The above gives clear indication that my opponent does not 
intend to admit what is involved in a divorce.  Remember, he said 
he would not even look it up because it has nothing to do with 
our discussion!    Apostasion is involved in an actual divorce.  
It is the other “part” – A bill of divorce (papers).  My opponent 
does not want to go there.

Every proven and reliable source on the greek language mentions 
divorce as what apoluo means.   

rw Evidently my opponent’s idea of a reliable and proven source 
is if it agrees with his theory and backs up his beliefs and 
practices.  All others become unproven and unreliable if they 
disagree with him.  Nevertheless, the ASV, YLT, Darby, KJV (with 
one inconsistent exception) and others, remain “proven and 
reliable” yet they do not agree with Brian.  Apoluo is correctly 
translated “put away” and “put away” does not mean divorce in 
English.  It is that simple.

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.”  

rw We have already discussed the matter of authorities.  Again, 
Brian recognizes the ASV as being reliable and accurate.  It 
supports my position.  Nevertheless, my opponent says we are to 
believe what the “best lexicons and dictionaries” say, but he has 
a problem.  He has ridiculed the one-man versions that 
consistently translate apoluo as “put away”, therefore his 
insisting that “one man” dictionaries (particularly the ones he 
deems to be the best) be accepted shows him to be inconsistent.

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.  

rw There is no indication that God used “put away” and divorce in 
an interchangeable way.  Brian’s problem is that he thinks 
separation is only a temporary thing but divorce is permanent.  
The word “divorce” denotes the idea of a legal desolation of a 
marriage.  What my opponent says above helps me in my 
affirmation, not him.  

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.  

rw I used Jer 3:1 in my affirmative but my opponent did not 
respond to the argument. Now he tries to turn it around and make 
an affirmative argument of his own.  

In the above-mentioned passage, the word “they” was doubtless a 
reference to the Jews who had come to misunderstand and misuse 
Deut 24-1-4.  (This will become evident when you understand the 
message of the text.)  In Deut 24 the husband was forbidden to 
take back a wife to whom he had actually given a “bill of 
divorce” and who had married another.  He was not forbidden to 
take back a woman who he had “put away” or merely sent out of the 
house, as we have seen from Isaiah 50:1 in my affirmative, though 
it seems apparent from the text (Jer 3:1) that such had become 
the thinking of the people.  God said, Regardless of this 
erroneous thinking I will take you back.  He was saying, we have 
been separated and you have played the harlot, nevertheless, I 
will take you back. Again, I asked, “Was God asserting that he 
would do something that was against the Law, and therefore would 
mess up the paradigm he had given?”  My opponent makes arguments 
that are unscriptural and have unacceptable consequences.

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.  

rw No, the versions most respected for accuracy or literal word 
for word translation, do not say, “divorced”, they say, put away, 
driven away or sent away.  The prohibition was evidently for 
assuring that the priests married persons that were pure and not 
actually bound by marriage to another.  My opponent contends that 
Deut 24:1-4, which allowed divorce, was only applicable in the 
case where the wife committed adultery.  We have seen that there 
was a Law for that – the death penalty.  Therefore, if he is 
correct on that major matter then there would have been no 
divorced women for the priests to consider marrying, thus he has 
misused the passage to try to support his position.  Brian, which 
argument do you want to give up?  You cannot have them both.

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, separating themselves from them by 
divorcing them.  

rw It is amazing that my opponent has attempted to use the above 
passage to support his position.  The word “yatsa” is virtually 
unanimously translated “put away” or send away.  Divorce is not 
in the definition at all.  Thus, my opponent has taken the 
position that simply separating from someone with whom you are 
committing porneia is divorce.  That means, according to my 
opponents reasoning, that if a couple shack-up and one becomes a 
Christians and ends the relationship he is a “divorced” person 
and cannot marry.  Bottom line – my opponent asserts that the 
priests divorced those illicit wives but he presented no evidence 
to support it.  He cannot and will not present evidence because 
all the evidence is to the contrary, as I presented at length in 
my affirmative.

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.  

rw My opponent is at such a loss to find anything to support his 
position that he has to charge me with making up the position for 
which I stand.  The charge in inexcusable because after he 
previously made the same charge I replied by providing several 
sources that teach what I believe and teach – sources who had 
been teaching it long before I learned the truth.  I have links, 
quotes and I know of at least three books.  Therefore, I do not 
understand how my opponent thinks he can gain any ground by 
making such a remark, again.  The comment that I “made it up” is 
unbrotherly to say the least.  Persons who have the truth do not 
need to resort to making such accusations.  

My opponent sums up his evidence to support his proposition by 
noting three things.  He said:

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.  


rw The subject began with the matter of “put away” and ended with 
“put away”.  Only in the seventh verse was the matter of Divorce 
mentioned.  The polygamy argument went over like a lead balloon.

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.  

rw Apoluo was consistently translated by ASV, YLT, etc., as “put 
away”.  We all know that “put away” does not mean divorce in 
English, except those who have determined that they need it to 
mean divorce to justify their teaching and practice. 

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

rw No, Brian is wrong.  I made the argument that Brian’s position 
has God being redundant, but he made no reply.

Moses commanded: “…That he shall write her a bill of divorcement, 
and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”  ASV

My opponent has Moses saying, let him divorce her and let him 
divorce her.  Nevertheless, clearly (as has been admitted) there 
are two parts to a divorce and “put away”, or send out of the 
house, is not THE divorce.  My opponent has not a leg on which to 
stand.

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.” 

rw It appears that my opponent cannot contemplate the idea that 
the majority could be wrong on the issue of divorce and 
remarriage.  My authority is not human tradition and I have 
sought diligently for the correct or biblical definition of the 
words Brian mentioned.  Indeed, having the proper definition for 
put away, adultery and fornication is crucial to understanding 
the truth about divorce and remarriage.  My opponent has provided 
nothing substantial to support his thinking regarding the meaning 
of any of the above-mentioned words.

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.

rw Actually, I think I said I changed twice.  I wonder if my 
opponent has truly studied divorce and remarriage to learn what 
the Bible says or if he has just determined to defend tradition, 
as he learned it.  He suggests that I accept what the Bible says, 
but he is the one that will not accept what it says.  Rather, he 
changes “put away” to divorce.  Unfortunately, he is not alone in 
having been deceived, but he is the ONLY one, to my knowledge, 
that has ever agreed to affirm in debate that apoluo (put away) 
means divorce.

Brotherly, Robert Waters