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

It is difficult to decide where to begin or what to cover with 
Robert’s reply.  Robert shows his misunderstanding about common 
words.  For example, with regard to APOLUO, Robert has stated 
that it does not mean to separate and it does mean to separate.   
So, Robert, let me write this to you in a very simply way.  
Divorce involves separating.  But divorce is more than 
separating.  Divorce is the attempt to release or loose one from 
something they are bound to.  Separating alone does not do that.  
But APOLUO literally means “to loose” (LUO) “from” (APO).  The 
word itself goes beyond a separation which does not loose from 
anything.  Robert can’t seem to realize that while divorce 
involves separation, it is more than separation, it is a loosing, 
which is what apoluo refers to.

Next, Robert seems hung up on the translation of Apoluo as 
meaning put away, not referring to divorce.  Robert, what you 
must realize is that apoluo means to loose from.  That is its 
literal translation.  I took Greek for 3 years and the first word 
you learn in Machen’s beginning Greek book is LUO, which means to 
loose.  That is the basis of the Greek word APO-LUO.  Any 
beginning Greek student can tell you this.  The translation of 
apoluo as put away was meant to carry that idea, a loosing, or a 
divorce.  

I found this sentence from Robert to be interesting.  After doing 
an exposition of simply the text of Matthew 19:1-9, quoting no 
outside sources, Robert’s reply is as follows: 

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.

This is interesting Robert.  I argue from the text and it is 
“traditional”.  You argue from nothing and it is truth?  If I am 
arguing from the tradition of Christ and later the apostles, then 
I will stay there, for that kind of tradition is God approved.

Robert then refuses to see his inconsistency when the genders are 
reversed and Mark 10:12 has the woman putting away the man and 
marrying another.  And Robert will not deal with that, for if he 
does he has Jesus teaching a woman can be married to more than 
one man at a time.

Robert writes the following: 
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.

Robert, here is the circular reasoning.  First, if my wife sent 
me out of the house, she would not apoluo me.  Apoluo means to 
loose from.  Sending me out looses me from nothing.  Second, the 
word in 1 Corinthians 7 is NOT apoluo.  Now, why did Paul not use 
apoluo if it means simply to send away or separate?

Then, Robert finally defeated himself.  Robert states, 
Of course, separation is not “unjoining”.  

Well, Robert, that is what Apoluo means: to loose from.  That is 
literally the definition of the word.  To loose from marriage is 
to unjoin.  Now, you are exactly right.  Separation is not 
unjoining or loosing.  And because it is not, and because apoluo 
is, then apoluo cannot be a mere separation as you state, but must be 
the unjoining, the divorce.

Then in Robert’s second part of his rebuttal, he states,  

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.

Brian replies, indeed Robert, you pulled out versions that are 
obscure.  There is a difference between a work that has proven 
itself (such as Thayers and Kittel’s) and are considered standard 
works by Bible scholars, and works that few people in the 
business have ever heard of.  When I took my research class for 
my Master’s Degree at Harding Graduate school of religion, they 
introduced us to the proven and accepted works which included: 
Thayers, Ardnt and Gingrich, and Kittel’s.  In any field, there 
are works that become reputable because of their reputation, 
because they have been proven over the years.  These three works 
are such in the study of Greek languages.  Actually, by your 
statement above, you have informed us all that you don’t have a 
good grasp of biblical language studies, and thus what you are 
trying to put forth as evidence is not evidence, because it comes 
from a lack of understanding.

Second Robert, I have never objected to Apoluo meaning “put 
away”.  I object to what you say “put away” means.  You want put 
away to mean merely a separation.  Put away means a loosing of 
something, much more than simply being separated.  I have no 
objection to the way the ASV translates apoluo, for put away 
means divorce!

Robert says,
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.

Brian replies, Robert that is not your position.  Your position 
is that put away means a separation.  The ASV does not teach 
that.

Robert says, 
Nevertheless, I quoted from three English dictionaries regarding 
the meaning of “put away” and they did not mention divorce.

Brian replies, Robert, first, English dictionaries do not define 
“put away”.  That is a phrase.  A dictionary only defines words.  
Second, why did you not quote from any standard Greek dictionary?  
I think I know why, because a Greek dictionary defines apoluo as 
“loosing from” and “divorce”.

Concerning Kittel’s, Robert states, 
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.”

Brian replies, Robert, you are showing your ignorance and 
unfamiliarly with standard Bible study tools.  Kittel was the 
editor.  The various ‘chapters’ in this multivolume set were 
written by many different men, usually in teams. I find it 
difficult to believe that you are setting yourself up as an 
expert of this Greek word, and have never heard of the most 
comprehensive and proven works on the Greek language.  Perhaps 
prior to telling us what a Greek word means, you should find out 
what authorities are accepted in this field of study.

Robert states, 
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.

Brian here:  Robert assumes something that is not supported by 
the evidence or by word studies.  Does put away mean merely to 
separate from?  Does send away mean merely to separate from?   
Robert has not shown, and cannot show that send away and put away 
mean the same thing, and cannot show either are separate from 
divorce.  

Robert states that 
My opponent has not a leg on which to stand.

Let’s see, Robert.  Valid and reputable word studies support me.  
That’s one leg.  The contrast Jesus is making in Matthew 19:1-9 
support me (that’s two legs).  The reaction of the disciples 
support me (that’s three legs), and the teaching of the apostles 
support me (that’s four legs).  I could go on, but how many legs 
do you think I need?

Let me take a moment to look back over these two debates I was 
asked to engage in with Mr. Waters.  Robert Waters desired to 
debate on two topics: ‘Was Jesus’ teaching part of the Old Law or 
the New Law (particularly, did Jesus contradict the Old Law in 
Matthew 19:1-9)?’, and does apoluo mean divorce in Matthew 19:1-
9?  Obviously, both topics deal with marriage, divorce, and 
remarriage.

Robert states that he has no personal interest in this topic.  
Let me suggest he is either not being truthful to us, or that he 
has an obsessive disorder.  Every list I have been on that Robert 
has been on, this is primarily what Robert discusses.  

Robert’s obsession with this subject is a cause for concern.  
Robert states the ‘traditional’ view causes people to lose their 
liberty to marry whom they will.  Let me suggest two things: 
first, even if Robert was right and the ‘traditional’ view is 
wrong, salvation is not being affected.  One can (and should want 
to) live single if there is cause to think that remarriage would 
cause one to lose their soul).  On the other hand, if, as the 
evidence shows, Robert is wrong and what he calls the 
‘traditional’ view is correct, people who follow Robert’s 
teaching will be living in adultery and will lose their souls in 
eternity.  When we talk about souls being lost, there is grave 
cause for concern. 

Robert early on has tried to suggest that my position is a 
traditional position.  I know what he means by that and I realize 
that is simply inflammatory language.  But let’s look at that 
concept for a moment.  What is a ‘traditional’ position?  
Traditional simply means something taught in the past.  Any 
teaching of the Bible which has been taught in the past is 
traditional, right or wrong.  Even the Bible uses this term to 
refer to teachings of the apostles and Christ (1 Cor. 11:2, 2 
Thess 2:15, 3:6).  In that sense, yes, I am teaching the 
traditions of Christ and the apostles.  On the other hand, the 
Bible condemns teaching and practicing the traditions of men 
(Matthew 15:6).  Paul, prior to becoming a Christian was zealous 
of his traditions (Gal. 1:14), but he was wrong.  Col. 2:8 speaks 
of those who make spoil of the Christians by their traditions, 
and Matthew 15:6 speaks of making void the word of God through 
their traditions.  You see, traditions simply refer to what has 
been taught.  I could accuse Robert of teaching the traditions of 
Olan Hicks, Dan Billingsley and James Bales.  But that would not 
mean anything.  What I must do is look at whether what they 
taught is what the Bible teaches, and more specifically, is what 
Robert teaches what the Bible teaches.  In this aspect, I have 
shown that Robert is indeed teaching the traditions of men and 
not the traditions of God, Christ and the apostles.  In so doing, 
he is making void the word of God and is in danger of spoiling 
the souls of Christians who may believe and follow what he teaches.   
This is a grave position he has placed himself in, and 
for the sake of his eternity, he needs to be a little more 
thorough in his research.

I base no belief on what others teach, and so should no one else.  
All of us learn from other teachers, as we should, but we are 
supposed to study and prove for ourselves what the Bible teaches.  
I have read books by faithful gospel preachers on this subject, 
and in comparing what they say to what the Bible says, found most 
if not all of their positions to be of God.  But I don’t believe 
what I believe because any one man teaches it, I believe what I 
believe because the Bible teaches it.  I have had email list 
discussions with Olan Hicks, read material by Dan Billingsley and 
James Bales, and other men who try to further their teaching.  In 
reading such, I have found: one, their teachings do not conform 
to what the Bible says; two, their teachings do not follow logic; 
and three, they don’t even agree with one another.

What is Robert trying to prove in these debates?  First, he tried 
to prove that all Jesus taught while he was living on this earth 
was part of the Old Law.  Robert does not realize that the Old 
Law had already been written and did not need to be further 
taught.  The Old Law was about to end.  

Thus Mark will begin his gospel with these words: “The beginning 
of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Even as it is 
written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before 
thy face, Who shall prepare thy way. The voice of one crying in 
the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths 
straight; John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached 
the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.”  

Note what Mark is saying.  First, what he was writing was the 
beginning of the gospel of Jesus.  Not the teachings of the Old 
Law.  Second, this was prophesied by Isaiah.  Jesus would come 
and prepare the way.  Prepare the way for what? The Old Law to 
continue to be taught?  No.  He was preparing the way for the New 
Law, the gospel, to come of authority by teaching that gospel.  
Third, John the Baptist prepared for this by teaching baptism for 
the remission of sins.  This was never taught under the Old Law.

In John’s introduction of Christ in John 1:14-17, John writes, 
“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his 
glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of 
grace and truth. John beareth witness of him, and crieth, saying, 
This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become 
before me: for he was before me.   For of his fullness we all 
received, and grace for grace.  For the law was given through 
Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”

Note, John states that the word (Christ) came full of grace and 
truth.  It did not come after his death but it came as part of 
Christ and his work.  And then he contrasts that grace and truth 
Christ brought to the law given through Moses.  They were not the 
same.  That which Christ brought, the gospel, the New Law, was so 
much greater than the Old Law given through Moses.  That law was 
just a schoolmaster or tutor.  What Christ brought was the real 
thing, the permanent law.  And it was brought by Christ as he 
BEGAN his ministry, not as he ended it.

But Robert cannot accept that because he knows Matthew 19:1-9 is 
talking about divorce (else he would not need to argue it was 
part of the Old Law), and he wants that teaching to be the Old 
Law, so he must make all of Christ’s teaching part of the Old 
Law.  The interesting thing is, why would God have the gospels 
written, 30 or more years after the death of Christ and the end 
of the Old Law, if all the gospels taught were teachings of the 
Old Law?  And why have four gospels written.  

Robert’s affirmations on our first debate show this, because he 
did not write the first affirmation.  His first posting was a 
series of questions.  Nothing was affirmed.  His next two 
postings were simply criticisms of my response to his questions.  
Why did he not give the proof?  Because there is none.  He cannot 
prove that Christ was only teaching Old Law, because everything 
in the Bible states otherwise.  

Then we get to apoluo.  The situation with apoluo is so simple, 
that unless one is trying to make the Bible teach what it is not 
teaching, it is impossible to misunderstand this word.  I as 
stated in my rebuttal, a beginning Greek student can tell you 
what apoluo means (to loose from).  Again, notice what Robert 
used for his proof in his affirmations.  

First, he went to the Old Testament.  Well, the Old Testament 
does not use apoluo, for the Old Testament was written in Hebrew 
and the New Testament was in Greek.  Even beyond that, Robert did 
not prove that apoluo did not refer to a divorce.

Second, he went to Josephus, a Jewish historian, who still did 
not prove what Robert wanted proven.

Third, he found one commentator, who is not a member of the 
church and not considered a scholar who Robert thinks agreed with 
him.  

Fourth, he kept saying that apoluo is simply a separation (and 
that put away is referring only to a separation).  What Robert 
will not admit (he understands this) is that divorce involves 
separating.  That is part of what divorce is.  But divorce is 
more than simply separating.  Divorce involves loosing from a 
contract or covenant.  Separation does not involve that.  Since 
apoluo means to loose from, and separation does not, then apoluo 
cannot be referring to just a separation.  Putting away refers to 
ending the marriage, not just to a separation.  Putting away 
cannot mean just a separation.  But divorce involves both loosing 
from, and ending the marriage.  Divorce is the meaning of apoluo 
in Matthew 19:1-9.

Fifth, he wanted to redefine “put away” as being merely a 
separation.  He thinks the fact that put away is used by the ASV, 
that it proves his point.  What point does that prove, Robert?  
Unless you redefine “put away” to something much less than what 
the term means (separation), you have proven nothing.  Put away 
is more than simply separating.  It refers to putting away the 
marriage and the marriage contract.   The ASV is accurate in its 
translation of apoluo as “put away”.  The KJV is accurate in 
translating apoluo as “divorce”, because they both refer to the 
same thing.

What Robert is doing is much like what many denominations have 
done with the word baptism.  Baptism means to bury or immerse.  
That word defines what the act of baptism is.  Denominations who 
sprinkle want to change the definition, because they do not bury 
or immerse.  So, they go to Webster’s dictionary that gives the 
modern usage of the word, not to standard lexicons or Greek 
dictionaries that define what baptism meant in the first century.  
Robert has done the same with Apoluo, written a lot of words, and 
proven nothing.

What I was amazed at is what Robert did not do.  1. He did not 
deal with the text.2. He did not go to any standard and 
recognized word studies.3. He did not, and could not, show that 
Apoluo does not mean divorce.

He could not, because it is just not there.  

Robert brought out the point many times that my view (the Bible 
view), cause marriages to be broken, and uses the emotional 
argument that it is wrong to break up a family.  Robert, what the 
Bible states may cause marriages made by men to be broken, but 
not marriage joined together by God.  Let me give two examples in 
using your same emotional argument.

I have a brother who lives in Great Britain, and one of the 
things they come in contact with in personal evangelism is 
couples who have been together for years, have children and have 
never married.  Often, one of them is separated but not divorced 
from another person.  As they teach them, they will teach that 
they either need to marry, if eligible in God’s sight, or they 
need to quit living as husband and wife.  By Robert’s emotional 
argument that this will break up a long-standing family, they 
would be wrong to teach that.

While this debate has gone on, a secular debate in our society 
towards ‘gay’ marriage has come to the front in the news.  In the 
past two weeks one state is trying to legalize marriage between 
‘gays’ and San Francisco has gone against the law of California 
to issue marriage license and perform marriage to gay couples.  
Robert, many of these couples have been together for decades and 
some have children.  Would you follow your argument and say these 
should be left alone and allowed to continue in that relationship 
because it is already there?  I don’t think that Robert would 
follow his own argument here.  But those who follow Robert’s 
logic today will be teaching this in 10 years.  Robert’s logic 
just doesn’t hold water.

What are the facts here?

1. Apoluo literally means to loose from.  ‘Apo’ mean from, and 
‘luw’ means to loose.  Put away is another way of saying to loose 
from.  Divorce is another say of saying to loose from.  That is 
why Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, a standard and proven work over many 
years gives these definitions to apoluo.  That is also why 
Kittel’s New Testament Theological Dictionary states the same.  
These are the standard works proven, accepted and respected in 
the field of Greek word studies today.  The third work I have not 
mentioned, because I don’t have a copy is Ardnt and Gingrich’s 
Greek lexicon.  While I don’t have a copy and have not seen it, I 
am positive that it will define Apoluo as “loose from” or 
“divorce”, because that is simply the meaning of the word.

2. The context of Matthew 19:1-12 shows Jesus contrasting what 
the Pharisees are attempting to prove by the Old Law (that a 
person can divorce his wife for any reason), with God’s original 
plan for marriage (that marriage is for life).  In verse 9, Jesus 
is concluding this by saying “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall 
put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry 
another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put 
away doth commit adultery.”  By the way, Robert, this is the KJV.  
The KJV does not ever use the word divorce or divorces, and the 
ASV only uses the word divorce one time in Jeremiah to refer to 
the bill.  Why is this the case?  Because the phrase ‘put away’ 
is synonymous with divorce.

3. Even the disciples’ reaction to this shows Jesus is teaching 
something different than what they were used to and than what the 
Old Law teaches.  The disciples knew the Old Law.  They knew what 
the Pharisees taught.  If, as Robert wants us to believe, Jesus 
was simply stating what the Old Law stated, the disciples would 
have been comfortable with that.  But notice their reaction in 
Matthew 19:10, “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the 
man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.”  They 
understood well what Jesus was saying and understood the 
seriousness of marrying for life.

Robert’s view has no valid support, and thus he has not given 
any.  A word study shows Apoluo, “to loose from” means divorce.  
The context shows in Matthew 19, Jesus is speaking of divorce and 
is teaching his gospel.  Will this change Robert’s mind?  No.  
Robert is so insistent on his view (for whatever reason), he is 
going to hang on to it, no matter what.  Robert’s arguments will 
continue to change over the years, as he realizes he has no proof 
for his position and frantically tries to find proof.  My prayer 
will be that he comes to understand that what he calls the 
traditional position has traditionally been taught simply because 
that is what the Bible teaches.  My fear is that Robert may be so 
deep in his false teaching that God will give him a working of 
error and allow him to believe a lie (2 Thessalonians 2:11).

Brian Galloway