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.

The first propositions were concerning whether Jesus contradicted 
the Law in his teachings.  Brian’s main argument, regarding which 
not a few have misunderstood, was concerning Jesus’ statement, 
“but I say unto you”.  Brian asserted that there was a 
“contrast”, i.e., Moses said THIS, but I am changing it to THIS.  
Brian says Jesus did contradict the Law, but he failed to provide 
a shred of evidence to support his assertion.  He presented 
passages where Jesus took issue with the traditions (Taliban) of 
the scribes and Pharisees (lawmakers of the day) but did not show 
where Jesus took issue with Moses (see Matt. 5:17, 18; 20).   I 
rebutted each of the scriptures he misused.  In my affirmative 
installments, I noted various scriptures and made several 
arguments from which a prudent disciple of Jesus would have to 
conclude that Jesus could not possibly have contradicted the Law. 

The first debate was important because one of the many needed 
assumptions upon which Brian’s doctrine of imposing celibacy on 
legally divorced persons is based, is that Jesus changed what 
Moses taught on the occasion when he addressed the Pharisees.  In 
each instance, where “but I say unto you” was brought up I showed 
that Jesus was not taking issue with Moses but with the scribes 
and Pharisees’ false notions regarding what Moses had actually 
said.  With the idea that Jesus changed the Law decisively 
defeated (the main assumption on which Brian’s doctrine of 
imposing celibacy is based) my proposition was left unscathed, 
which is that divorced persons are in a subsequent marriages must 
divorce again live celibate.  The assumption that Jesus changed 
the Law before his death must be seen for what it is and 
rejected.  Otherwise, clear teachings by the apostle Paul to 
Christians regarding who has a right to a marriage will continue 
to be misconstrued and disobeyed.  

In my three affirmative installments regarding the meaning of 
APOLUO, I provided ample evidence to support my position, and 
have been finding more and more evidence through research and 
people sending things to me, much of which will be added to my 
website.

This is the final installment regarding the proposition below, 
which Brian Galloway has attempted to affirm.  The proposition is 
as follows:

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".

A Word or Two About Scholars

Since the basis of my opponent’s thinking regarding how the word 
APOLUO is used, as per his proposition, is based entirely upon 
the word of scholars, it is therefore needful to note a few 
things here.  First, my opponent has eliminated the “one man” 
lexicons as being credible because he eliminated the “one man” 
translations as being credible.  That left him to defend Kittle, 
which he says was the work of several men, as his source of 
authority.  Second, it is sad that some brethren regard so highly 
the works of certain men.  They sometimes even give the 
impression that some are inspired.  What is amazing is that Brian 
has discredited a “scholar” I quoted because he was not a member 
of the church.  When he applies that worthless quibble to 
himself, he will have no human authority to appeal to because his 
“scholars” were not members of the church either.  In fact, 
Kittle’s history, the scholar that Brian placed on the highest 
level of learning and authority, is alarming. One source from 
which I recently read is Kittle, 
which states that Kittle was a Nazi and a member of Hitler’s 
cabinet and that he was convicted and imprisoned for his key part 
in the extermination of millions of Jews.   The following is 
evidence that the above is likely a credible statement:

“Even after the war, members of the Confessing Church admitted 
their guilt. For example, Gerhard Kittle, a world-renowned 
scholar of the New Testament confessed his political guilt as he 
insisted that a "Christian anti-Judaism" which he found in the 
New Testament and in the tradition of the Christian church 
determined his attitude toward the Jewish question during the 
Third Reich.[Wollenberg, p. 76] On March 1946, in a lecture in 
Zurich, Martin Niemöller declared: "Christianity in Germany bears 
a greater responsibility before God than the National Socialists, 
the SS and the Gestapo." [Goldhagen, p.114] Quoted from: jews-
for-allah.org

Kittle was evidently anti-Jew.  Therefore, that he had no problem 
with the idea that the Jewish Law, which allowed divorced persons 
to remarry, was contradicted by Jesus is understandable.

Were Arndt-Gingrich members of the church?  Thayer?  Strong?  
I do not think so.  Nevertheless, if they were that would not make 
them infallible.

Galloway’s Temporary Attempt to Use Scripture

My opponent attempted to use the scriptures to prove his 
proposition in his previous installment.  However, I showed that 
the passages he used actually support my proposition.  Therefore, 
he went back to human sources of authority to support his 
proposition in his last installment.  My opponent needs to head 
Paul’s warnings to “learn to not think of men above that which is 
written... that no one of you be puffed up for one against 
another” (1Co 4:6).

The evidence my opponent has provided in his effort to sustain 
his position was mainly that certain “word studies” proved that 
APOLUO means divorce.  However, we must understand that scholars 
often use context in defining a word, just as any Bible student 
should.  If the definition they give is based upon an improper 
conclusion (and they are fallible), the definition they give to 
the word will consequently be erroneous.  

Facts That Presented Problems for Galloway

My opponent was completely at a loss as to how to deal with 
several facts, some of which I note below: 1)  That many 
respected translators DID NOT translate APOLUO as divorce in any 
instance; 2)  That respected translators and others scholars 
understood APOLUO to mean, “put away”, “send away”, “dismiss”, 
“repudiate”, etc. and that such words or phrases do not mean 
divorce (in the full sense of the word) in English; 3) That “put 
away” (also translated in others ways, as noted above) is only 
PART of the procedure for completing a legal/scriptural divorce 
(actually he admitted this point but the acknowledgment was self-
defeating); 4)  That when a wife is “put away” the act amounts to 
separation, rather than a legal divorce (this was also admitted 
but was self-defeating); 5)  That when one is merely “put away”, 
rather than fully and legally divorced, and marries another, 
adultery is committed because there was no “bill of divorcement” 
to end the marriage. 6) That the context of Old Testament 
passages indicates that a man could simply put away his 
woman/wife (no “bill of divorcement needed”) if for some reason 
the union was not a lawful union – namely, already married to 
another (Rom 7:1-4), incest (1 Cor 5:1), having married a women 
that was forbidden because of where she was from (Gen. 28:6); and 
marrying one who had been the wife of your brother, while he 
still lived (Mat. 14:3,4; Lev. 20:21). 7) That the facts noted 
above explain the “exception clause” as not teaching the need to 
investigate legal divorces to determine who divorced who and who 
has a right to a marriage.

Because of his inability to deal with the facts, due to his 
position being unsustainable, my opponent unfortunately sought 
other means of “damage control” to include several personal 
attacks on my character, impugning my motives and denigrated my 
ability to understand and to debate.  Of course, these are things 
that he should have left for the reader to conclude, as I shall 
do as the matters pertain to him.

A Major Point of Misunderstanding

In my rebuttal to my opponent’s second affirmative installment, I 
made a statement that should have clarified any misunderstanding 
regarding what I think about “separation” as it relates to “put 
away”.  Nevertheless, this has been the focal point throughout 
this debate of Brian’s effort to show that I misunderstand the 
meaning of APOLUO.  Below is the quote:

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.

Difficulty Getting Someone To Debate These Propositions

The propositions that we have discussed were posted on this list 
and advertised in others as well for a considerable length of 
time before Brian accepted them.  Evidently, he is a competent 
debater because he was asked to take the propositions, which 
others refused.  He has informed the reader on more than one 
occasion of his education and background, continued in the 
negative while supposed to be in the affirmative, and resorted to 
less than honorable tactics.  Thus, it is evident that he is not 
confident that he has successfully affirmed his propositions nor 
successfully denied mine.  Nevertheless, I appreciate that he has 
stayed with the debate until the end, which has allowed me to 
prove my propositions and to show the problems inherent in his.  
If he really thinks he has accomplished his goals in this debate, 
he will publicize it on lists as well as other means

Brian Galloway’s remarks, followed by my reply

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.

rw I do not recall stating that I have no personal interest in 
this topic.  No family member that is close to me has been 
divorced.  Nevertheless, I have a personal interest…because I 
have a personal interest in teaching the gospel to others.  It 
grieves me to know that preachers are loosing souls who are 
penitent believers, because they think it is necessary to require 
them to break up their legal marriages (destroying their happy 
homes, in some instances) and live celibate, before they can be 
baptized, or before they can be taken into the fellowship of the 
church.  It also gets “personal” when those who are not willing 
to “let them marry” (1Cor 7:8, 9) call me a false teacher, and 
that I am “either not being truth” or have an “obsessive 
disorder” because of my teaching what the apostle Paul clearly 
commands.

bg Every list I have been on that Robert has been on, this is 
primarily what Robert discusses.  Robert is the one who 
challenged these debates.  I have not looked a Robert’s website, 
but I am certain this is mainly what is on that website.  

rw Brian is wrong in his assertion that divorce and remarriage is 
the main thing on my web site.  It is amazing that someone would 
debate a man and not so much as visit his website to see what is 
taught on it.  Actually, if my opponent had visited my website he 
would have seen that it deals with Total Health – emphasizing the 
importance of caring for the whole person, both the spiritual and 
the physical.  Under the “Spiritual Health” section, there are 
approximately 100 full-length sermons and articles, plus dozens 
of links to great websites.  At the “Physical Health” section, 
the visitor will find a few articles and many links to websites 
that can profit the reader who has not always found traditional 
medicine to be the answer to health concerns.  There is also a 
page on “Health Quotes”, which contains a large collection of 
interesting quotations starting with inspired scripture and 
continuing with quotes from men of note, up to the present day.  
Since divorce and marriage is a matter that can affect both the 
physical and spiritual health of an individual, a page has been 
included on the website.  Because of the amount of interest in 
this page, I continue to expand it, yet it presently comprises 
less than 20% of the total material on the website.   
Robert Water’s Website

bg 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).  

rw It is strange that because I have determined to learn the 
truth on the divorce and remarriage issue and to teach it in 
places where it is needed, that I now how an OBSESSION.  
Actually, the “obsession” is seen in those who are willing to end 
friendships, bust up families, mark and malign preachers as false 
teachers, prohibit them from being heard, destroy influence and 
reputations, and divide churches – all because of a doctrine they 
have been taught that is entirely based upon assumptions and 
which is contrary to very plain scriptures.

It is ludicrous for my opponent to state that “salvation is not 
being affected” if the traditional position is wrong.  First, 
preachers are often not even bothering to try to teach people the 
gospel in cases whey know they would “have” to bust up their 
marriage if they taught them.  Second, people who have been 
divorced, but have married again, often have no interest in 
religion because they have been given told that they will be 
required to live celibate to be considered faithful, which makes 
them feel they are not worthy of salvation or that they are 
second class citizens in the kingdom.  Divorcing their loved one 
is not in their nature, thus Brian’s doctrine (“forbidding to 
marry”), which God calls “doctrines of devils”, does indeed 
result in souls being lost.  I once baptized a couple who I had 
taught in their home.  Since, at the time, I did not know the 
truth on the issues discussed in this debate I showed them Matt. 
19:9, and let them make up their own mind.  I baptized the wife, 
but not the husband.  He was angered by what I was allowing him 
to believe from the text.  He said, “I could have killed my wife 
and gotten forgiveness and be allowed to marry, but since I let 
her (the unfaithful one) divorce me, because it was easier, I 
must now remain celibate.”  He rejected the Lord.  Had I known at 
the time what Paul clearly teaches in 1 Cor 7, I could have shown 
those clear passages to him and he would certainly have obeyed 
the gospel, along with his wife who did obey and who could not 
understand how God could require breaking up her home.  

bg 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.  

rw Indeed, there is concern for souls being lost IF my position 
is error.  That is why people need to study this issue with an 
open mind and why I have been challenging others to debate it.  
Really, when one realizes that Jesus could not have contradicted 
the Law, because such would be transgression, and therefore rules 
out the idea that Jesus taught that a divorced person cannot 
marry another, then what is left is to determine what Paul 
taught.  Those who have learned to study Paul’s teachings without 
the pressure to twist his teachings to confirm with assumptions 
derived from Jesus’ teaching to the Israelites, will clearly see 
that God’s law is that persons who have no marriage must be 
allowed to have a marriage “to avoid fornication”.

bg 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.  

rw It is interesting that Brian says he knows what I mean by 
“traditional” and he states it correctly, but not before he 
falsely asserts that it is “inflammatory language”.  It seems my 
opponent was at a loss to deal with my arguments pertaining to 
the proposition and therefore sought to gain ground by personal 
attacks from beginning to end in his final installment.  Brian 
calls me Mr. (rather than brother as required in scripture), 
childish, ignorant, and “opinionated without evidence”, to name a 
few.  Talk about “inflammatory language”!  My using the word 
“tradition” to refer to what is commonly taught on the divorce 
and remarriage issue is not “inflammatory language”.  

My opponent attempts to associate me with others who have already 
been ostracized by men like himself who are determined to 
maintain tradition by any means.  He states, “I could accuse 
Robert of teaching the traditions of Olan Hicks, Dan Billingsley 
and James Bales.”  Although I have learned some things from Olan 
Hicks, my teaching, as represented in this debate, are markedly 
different from the position of any of those mentioned above.

bg 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.

rw It is interesting that Brian has at least twice accused me of 
making up the idea that APOLUO means “put away” and that he has 
admitted that put away is PART of the divorce process, but in his 
inconsistency, he says I am teaching the tradition of men.  
“Tradition of men” means I learned it from others who have been 
teaching it.  Of course, I have presented proof that I not only 
was not the first to be teaching it lately but that the concept 
is not made up at all, since it both the Old Testament and the 
New Testament support it.

It is also interesting that my opponent accuses me of not having 
considered the danger of “spoiling the souls of Christians...”, 
yet he never addressed such concerns as “forbidding to marry” 
being “doctrines of devils”, or the fact that his doctrine causes 
division, drives away new converts, busts up families and is a 
great deterrent to evangelism. Brian’s doctrine is so destructive 
is there any wonder God chose to warn about it by calling it 
“doctrines of devils”?

Finally, he says I need to be more thorough in my research. I 
would suggest that one could never be “thorough” so long as his 
research is limited to human books written by fallible men.

bg 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.

rw The above is amazing.  Brian talks about the “positions” 
(plural) of others on divorce and remarriage and he says he has 
“found most if not all…to be of God.”  Dear reader, when there is 
more than ONE position on anything ALL are wrong, except possibly 
one, if the truth is among the “positions”. In the case of 
Brian’s research, from whom he calls “faithful men”, it is very 
doubtful that any had a real grasp of the truth on the subject 
that is being debated.

bg 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.  

rw Brian is misrepresenting me.  I never said all Jesus taught 
was part of the Old Law, nor have I said what he taught should 
not be included in the N.T.  My argument was that Jesus never 
contradicted the Law, which is a fact upon which virtually all 
agree, except Brian.

bg 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.

rw Brian knows the issue is NOT: “Are the gospels O.T.?”  He 
knows that the issue is: “To whom was Jesus speaking in Matt 19:9 
and what law was in effect.”  I have no problem with things that 
were “never taught under the O.T.”.  It is the charge that Jesus 
CHANGED an established law that He said he would not change “till 
all be fulfilled”, from: Divorced persons may marry again, to: 
Divorced persons may not marry again, and if they do they commit 
adultery, and if they are now married after a divorce they are 
living in adultery.  There is no indication, no evidence, that 
the Jews understood Jesus to have so taught. If they had so 
understood him He would have probably been executed before a 
trial. Certainly, they would have brought it up at the trial, but 
they did not.  These observations speak volumes.

Indeed, John and Jesus did the work that was prophesied regarding 
them, and they did it well.  Nevertheless, the old covenant did 
not end before the cross, and the “new covenant”, which was 
written mainly by the apostles, as they were inspired in their 
writings (which came even later) comprises our doctrine.

bg 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.

rw Ok, one can believe all the above and not believe that Jesus 
contradicted the Law.  My opponent knows he did not succeed in 
affirming his position on this matter and that virtually no one 
agrees with him.

bg 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.  

rw I am certain that Jesus dealt with the problem of Jews merely 
“putting away”, rather than fully divorcing, as commanded by 
Moses where they were intent on ending a relationship.  First, 
this is definitely what Deut. 24: 1 was about, which was the 
basis of the discussion at hand. Second, it was something that 
they were still doing and are doing to this very day.  I have 
proof of it on my website.  Third, this concept is the only way 
to reasonable explain how adultery was committed by doing what 
Jesus said was being done.  Third, this concept is the only way 
to explain the “exception clause” in a way that does not indict 
God as being unjust in punishing innocents. Fourth, this view 
allows the reader to believe and practiced what Paul clearly 
taught – that unmarried persons have a right to marry and that 
failure to “let them marry” is to teach “doctrines of devils”.

bg 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.  

rw This is almost comical.  If I did not prove my proposition, 
why has my opponent deemed it necessary to continue to restate 
his affirmative arguments (or rather assertions) regarding that 
proposition?  This debate has its own proposition, which he is 
supposed to affirm.  I suppose he needed something to say because 
he is very limited in things to provide as evidence because his 
proposition is based solely on the writings of human authorities.

bg 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.  

rw My opponent evidently thinks he can gain some ground by 
impugning motives and oversimplifying the issue.  Asserting that 
apoluo means “to loose from” does not begin to prove that it 
means divorce (to include the “writ”) as used in the text of our 
propositions.  The word “divorce” has been included in some 
definitions of the Greek, but it was evidently because the 
lexicographer believed that APOLUO was used of divorce in the 
case of Joseph.  Of course, Joseph did not need to divorce a 
woman that he had yet to take as his wife – maybe according to 
CUSTOM (human tradition), but NOT according to LAW (God’s will).  
A casual study of how various versions translate Matt 1:19 will 
reveal that there are respected scholars who do not think Joseph 
had any intention of doing anything but ending the engagement privately.

bg 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.

rw The context of Jesus teaching in Mat 19:9 was based upon Deut. 
24:1-4, which is Old Testament.  Of course, APOLUO was not the 
word that was used by Moses but the Hebrew word for “send” (out 
of the house) was Shalach, and no dictionary includes divorce as 
a definition for that word.

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

rw There were things noted from the writings of Josephus that 
lend support to my proposition, but since this was a work of an 
uninspired man I have to agree – what he said did not “prove” 
anything.  

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

rw If our prejudice against a scholar’s work can legitimately be 
used as a means of discrediting it, then the sources my opponent 
used should not be considered, for they were certainly were not 
members of the church.  I have already discussed the use of the 
human authorities that my opponent used to try to prove his 
position.

bg 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.

rw First, I never said that APOLUO is simply a separation, or 
that is what it means.  The fact that my opponent makes such 
statements regarding what I believe without providing any quotes 
is interesting.  The sending out of the house (repudiating), 
which results in a separation, is indeed PART of the divorce 
described in Deut 24:1.  Yet my opponent is grossly inconsistent 
in the fact that he also says “put away” is THE divorce.  The 
evil that was taking place, which Moses regulated, was that men 
were “loosing”, sending away, dismissing their wives, which 
amounted to a separation.  If they had done so according to the 
command of Moses, they would have completed the divorce by: 1) 
writing the bill, putting it into her hand, and sending her out 
of the house.  Only when the divorce was thus completed was the 
woman legally and scripturally loosed or divorced. 

bg Fifth, he wanted to redefine “put away” as being merely a 
separation.  

rw The above is not true.  I said “put away”, “results in 
separation”, or “amount to separation”, not that it was the same.  
I showed that a couple can consent to temporary separation and in 
such case neither was “put away”.

bg 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.

rw My point was that the most respected scholars, the ASV, Darby, 
YLT and others, translated APOLUO as “put away”.  Since Brian has 
agreed that the translation is correct we just need to learn and 
accept what “put away” means in English.  I quoted from three 
web-based authorities, and noted that not one of them so much as 
mentions divorce in the definition.  I pointed out that when we 
speak of “divorce” we say “divorce”, not put away.  Of course, 
those who are trying to force the phrase “put away” to mean 
“divorce”, and to change the meaning, are using “put away” in 
their writing when they mean divorce.  If you will think about it 
what they are doing is ridiculous, awkward speech and deceptive.   
bg 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.

rw What Brian charges is not what I have done.  First, 
lexicographers define apoluo as “put away” and my opponent has 
said that this is correct.  Well, again, for us to come to an 
agreement all we now need to do is learn and accept what “put 
away” means.  I proved that “put away” means, put away, send 
away, etc., not divorce.  I did so by showing how the phrase is 
used in the context, the O.T. context that was under 
consideration, O.T. scriptures dealing with “putting away” and 
divorce, and by noting how the most accurate translators 
consistently translated it.  In admitting that apoluo means “put 
away” my opponent gave up the debate.  It cannot mean, “put away” 
and “divorce”, for they are from completely different words.  
Although “put away” is involved in divorce is there is nothing to 
back up the theory that “put away” includes the whole process of 
legal/scriptural divorce in the context of Jesus’ teachings.  If 
one simply “puts away” his wife, there is no implication of 
having divorced her.

I’m glad Brian brought up the matter of baptism and used it as he 
did.  What he has done in claiming APOLUO means divorce is 
exactly the same thing some preachers do regarding the mode of 
baptism.  When they speak of baptism, they SAY, “sprinkle”, in 
place of baptism, which means immersion. Why, because it is 
important to them that people accept the words as being the same 
thing, even though they know they are different words with 
different meanings, as is the case with “put away” (from APOLUO) 
and “divorce” (from APOSTASION).  The idea is if they say it 
enough people will just accept that they are the same.  

bg What I was amazed at is what Robert did not do.   1. He did 
not deal with the text.

rw I assume Deut 241-4 and Matt 19:9 is the text?  Well my 
opponent is apparently forgetful.  In his last installment he 
wrote:

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’.

rw I suppose the fact that I quoted no outside sources 
invalidated my exposition.  

bg 2. He did not go to any standard and recognized word studies.

rw Shame on me.   I guess I figured the translators of the ASV 
and other reputable versions, that did not translate OPOLUO as 
divorce, were capable of taking care of that matter for me.

bg 3. He did not, and could not, show that Apoluo does not mean 
divorce.

rw Who is in the affirmative here?  Brian is supposed to be 
proving that apoluo means divorce.  Where is his proof?

bg 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.

rw No, it is not “the Bible view” that I speak of when I make 
reference to where the inspired apostle talked about it 
(“forbidding to marry”) being doctrines of devils.  The view that 
causes the break up of families and prohibits marriage, often 
resulting in fornication (1 Cor7:2), is the one that is based 
upon assumption and which is supported by “circular reasoning”.

bg 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.

rw I cannot believe that Brian wrote the above.  He presents the 
example that is exactly what was the problem with the Pharisees 
and which had been a problem even before Deut 24 was written.  
People who were “put away” (“sent out of the house”) and merely 
separated, were marrying another.  This was the case that 
resulted in adultery, NOT divorcing and marrying another.

bg 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.

rw What a ridiculous argument! The consequence of Brian’s 
doctrine is that people who are legally and scripturally married 
are required to break up their marriages.  Another consequence is 
that people who have no marriage are required to remain celibate.  
Such has nothing to do with the fornication among homosexuals 
that must be ended, regardless of the fact of adopted children.  
Children should be removed from these evil arrangements.  
However, they need to be left in homes where their only know 
father and mother are legally married.  IF it can be proven that 
a couple is living in adultery because one has been divorced then 
they too need to break up. But this is something that neither 
Brian nor anyone else can prove.  To do so you have to change the 
meaning of “put away” to divorce, which many have tried to do, 
whether ignorantly or deliberately, and even then you still would 
have no evidence that a legal divorce does not end a marriage.

bg 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.

rw Now, my opponent really is confused, has denied one thing, and 
then affirmed it. When I used the argument that several versions 
translate APOLUO as “put away”, he criticized that and made 
arguments against it. Then he says he has no problem with the 
translation of APOLUO being “put away”.  Now he says the literal 
definition is “loose”, which he says is the same thing as 
divorce.  If he is correct, he will have to apply Paul’s 
teaching, which will require that he give up the idea of telling 
divorced persons they cannot marry.  1 Cor 7:27- “Art thou bound 
unto a wife? seek not to be loosed.  Art thou loosed (luo) from a 
wife? seek not a wife.  But and if thou marry, thou hast not 
sinned…”  Perhaps my opponent has proven more here than he is 
willing to accept.  If “loosed” here means divorced, and it does, 
then what I have set out to accomplish has been accomplished.  
Persons who have been divorced are told they may marry and they 
sin not. This means they do not commit adultery by marrying.  Any 
effort to convince another that the above passage only applies to 
the “scripturally” divorced is tantamount to a denial of what the 
passage says.

But let us see if Brian thinking on the literal translation of 
APOLUO is correct according to Strong.  On the word, APO Strong 
says: “In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes 
separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.”  

On the word APOLUO Strong says: [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.

Is it not possible for a man today to “put (send) away” his wife, 
“repudiate” her, or “dismiss” her, yet not give her the bill of 
divorcement?  Of course it is, and, just as in the time of Moses, 
up to this present day in Israel, the wife is not free to marry 
and therefore commits adultery if she does.  The solution, where 
possible, is to get a divorce, which ends the marriage and frees 
all parties to marry.  

bg 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.

rw My opponent shows that he has not given much study to this 
subject and that he has paid little attention to the points I 
have made.  I have previously pointed out in this debate that the 
KJV inconsistently and errantly translated APOLUO as divorce in 
the second place APOLUO was found in Matt. 5:32.  He even said 
the translation was correct.   He wrote:

bg Robert states, "The KJV scholars erred by not being consistent 
in translating "apoluo" as "put away", in the teachings of Jesus 
in the texts noted above. This may explain why some authorities 
have added "divorced" to their definition of the Greek word 
"apoluo", as found in Matt 5:32. Why, after all, the KJV so 
translated it."

My reply, only if they use your definition of Apoluo, which has 
no basis. If put away and divorce refer to the same thing, then 
using them interchangeably would be very consistent.

rw Brian’s statement that “the ASV only uses the word divorce one time…to refer to the bill.” 
is deceptive.  The word “divorced” is 
used in Lev. 3:21; 22:13; and Numbers 30:9.  The word 
“divorcement” is used in Deut. 24:1, 3; Isa. 50:1; Jer. 3:8; 
Matt. 5:31; 19:7 and Mark 10:4.

bg 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.

rw The reaction of the disciples is evidence that Brian’s 
position regarding Jesus’ message is error.  First, the disciples 
would not have contradicted God’s idea that “it is not good that 
the man should be alone”(Gen 2:18),  (although many disciples 
today are requiring it), by questioning the wisdom of the 
institution of marriage - the Pharisees maybe, but NOT the 
disciples.  Thus, there must be a logical explanation for the 
statement, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not 
good to marry”.  Their comment was regarding the exception clause 
– “except it be for fornication”.  If the relationship was 
resulting in “fornication” because it was “not lawful” (for 
reasons previously discussed) it would be better if they had not 
married.  This is what they understood and what their reply 
referenced.  Remember, there is one word from which woman and 
wife are translated.  Thus, the disciples understood Jesus to 
have been talking about putting away a wife (woman), ending the 
relationship, because it was not a legal/scriptural marriage.  

Brian Attempts to Answer my Rebuttal to the 2nd Affirmation

Dear Readers

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.

rw An accusation without evidence is nothing short of slander.  I 
have consistently stated that when one “puts away” his wife it 
amounts to separation, rather than divorce, which requires legal 
papers.

bg 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.  

rw Smith’s Bible Dictionary defines divorce as: "A legal 
dissolution of the marriage relation." Thus, it is more than “the 
attempt to release or loose…”   No one disputes the idea that 
separation alone is not equal to divorce, but there is no basis 
upon which to contend that APOLUO implies that a legal/scriptural 
divorce has taken place.

bg 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.

rw Indeed, divorce involves separating.  Separating, resulting 
from having been “put away” (if that is the case, rather than 
simply a departing) is one of the THREE parts in a 
legal/scriptural divorce.  My opponent’s responsibility in his 
last three installments to this debate has been to PROVE that 
APOLUO means divorce.  He has done little more than assert what 
he thinks is the definition.  The authorities he uses have come 
up with their definition mainly by considering CONTEXT.  Thus, 
their definition is no more accurate than their opinion regarding 
the context.  Many have learned that the best commentary on the 
meaning of a word is the Bible itself: other scriptures and other 
translations, rather than lexicons or commentaries.  Many good 
translations lend support to the idea that “divorce” is not 
inherent in the meaning of APOLUO.  This is particularly true in 
the case of Joseph who had a mind to “dismiss” Mary when he 
thought she had been with another man (See NASV).

I fully understand that “While divorce involves separation, it is 
more than separation” and it is loosing…”  However, my opponent 
cannot seem to understand that a man can “send away” or “dismiss” 
his spouse, or his spouse just “departs”, and it does not equal 
divorce.  In his mind, he could be thinking he has loosed her in 
every sense of the word, but unless he gives her the “bill of 
divorcement”, she is NOT truly loosed or free to marry another.  
Thus, if she is with another man she commits adultery.

bg 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.  

rw I suppose that unless one can make up his mind from the 
context in which APOLUO is used that it does not mean divorce  
(and you certainly can do that), it boils down to who you are 
going to believe?  Everywhere I have looked up the definition of 
“put away” I did not find that divorce was in the definition 
(Collins, Encarta, and Dictionary.com).  Considering that the 
most trusted and accurate version, the ASV, never translates 
APOLUO as divorce, it simply means the translators did not 
consider that “divorce” (as we understand it) was under 
consideration.  We will look at various versions on the meaning 
of APOLUO, as used in Matt. 1:19, later.  

Brian’s comment about what was his FIRST lesson and his informing 
us that he has had three years of Greek makes me wonder if these 
fellows take Greek just because they think it will give them an 
advantage in debating.  Nevertheless, my observation has been 
that those who have studied Greek do not often agree among 
themselves. Thus, the best means of determining the meaning of a 
word is from studying the context and by reading the text from 
various respected translations. 

bg 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”.

rw The above is interesting because previously Brian stated: 
“What I was amazed at is what Robert did not do.  1. He did not 
deal with the text.” But above he notes that I did “an 
exposition” of the text.  It seems that my opponent cannot get 
his facts straight.

Brian continues to quote me:
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?  

rw Brian says I did not deal with the text.  Then he says I did 
and then he said I did not, that I “argue from nothing”.  There 
is “circular” something going on here, but I do not think it is 
“reasoning”.

bg 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.

rw “And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to 
another, she committeth adultery.”  

As I stated in a previous installment, Brian has no argument 
here.  Jesus was simply saying that the same thing applied in the 
case of a woman who might “put away” or leave her husband and 
marry another.

bg 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.  Note, this has nothing to do with 
this debate, but you seemed to want an answer.

My previous reply was as follows: 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.”

bg 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?

rw First, “send out of the house” is the very wording of the 
context that was the basis of the discussion between Jesus and 
the Pharisees.  Nevertheless, I agree that the “sending” ALONE 
does not release.  The “bill of divorcement” was to be “put into 
her hand” and THEN she would be released from the bondage of the 
covenant.  “Putting away” alone, does not release from the 
marriage.  It requires legal procedure, which is not implied in 
the phrase, “put away”, just as “send out of the house”, in Duet. 
24:1, did not imply the completeness of the divorce.  There is 
nothing inherent in the word “APOLUO” that requires the civil 
procedure required by law.

My opponent needs to forget that he took some courses in Greek, 
where he learned that there are certain books we must respect and 
follow, and then learn to think and study on his own.  

The passage I had in mind was 1Co 7:5 – “Defraud ye not one the 
other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give 
yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that 
Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”  There is no word in 
this passage for separation – it was implied. The passage I 
referred to showed it is not sinful for husband and wife to 
SEPARATE with consent.  Yet, Brian asks, “Now, why did Paul not 
use apoluo if it means simply to send away or separate?”  The 
answer is simple: he was talking about a case of separation by 
implication, a concept which my opponent does not seem to be able 
to grasp.

bg 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.

rw My opponent seeks to prove his proposition by making an 
argument based upon an assumption that he must first prove.  I 
believe that he calls this “circular reasoning” when he thinks I 
did it.  My opponent has not provided sufficient evidence to 
prove that APOLUO is “unjoining” or that it results in anything 
more than “separation”.  The only real effort I have seen from 
anyone to prove that APOLUO means divorce is to present Mt19:1, 
and assert that Joseph was married and therefore that his 
contemplating “putting her away” means he was contemplating 
“divorcing” her.  This brings me back to the point that versions 
are a better source of authority than lexicons.  Note how the 
following versions rendered the passage: Matthew 1:19 – “However, 
Joseph, her husband-to-be, was a fair man; he did not want to 
disgrace her. So he decided to quietly call off the marriage.” 
(International English)

Matthew 1:19 – “And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and 
not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.” 
(New American Standard)  

Matthew 1:19 – “Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and 
unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss 
her quietly.” (New Revised Standard with Apocrypha)

Matthew 1:19 – “Joseph, her fiancé, being a just man, decided to 
break the engagement quietly, so as not to disgrace her 
publicly.”  (New Living Translation)

My opponent’s idea that APOLUO means divorce in the text of his 
proposition is obviously not supported by the word of God, unless 
the above translations, as well as the ones that say, “put away” 
are simply wrong.

bg 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.

rw Mute point, Brian.  You have admitted that the correct 
translation for APOLUO is “put away”.  What difference does it 
make how many versions I show that so translate it?  It appears 
that you have just set you mind to dismiss any valid point I make 
without considering it.  Such is understandable because you think 
your education sets you so much higher than others who have not 
studied Greek and you think those so unfortunate as to have not 
walked in YOUR shoes cannot understand the Bible.  Thus, you view 
my “evidence” as coming “from a lack of understanding”.   
Nevertheless, things are becoming clear to me, and I expect your 
statement above has helped most readers to see things more 
clearly also.

bg 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!

rw “Put away” means divorce to those who have falsely concluded 
that Jesus was talking about divorce rather than dealing with the 
questions first asked by the Pharisees. To the rest of us, “put 
away” means what it says.  (On the WWW see Encarta, Collins 
Dictionary, and Dictionary.com.)  While these dictionaries define 
“put away” in the way that is commonly used among English 
speaking people, they do not mention the word divorce.  

bg 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.

rw Again, my position is that OPOLUO means, “put away” and the 
phrase does not mean “divorce” in English.  Obviously, if one 
sends away his wife, repudiates her, or dismisses her, he has 
taken an action that RESULTS in separation.  Even though I have 
been very clear throughout this debate on this matter my opponent 
has either failed to comprehend or thought he could in some way 
profit by creating confusion.

bg 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”.

rw This is almost comical.  My opponent has stated that the ASV 
is correct in translating APOLUO as “put away”.  He has clearly 
stated that “put away”, which is ENGLISH, is the proper 
translation.  But when I provide proof as to what is the meaning 
of this English phrase he quibbles.  Actually, he denies the 
meaning in English and refers us BACK to the Greek.  Finally, he 
states that dictionaries do not define phrases.  Nevertheless, I 
have noted some of the ones that do.  Of course, if we want to 
follow Brian’s rules and reject these dictionaries we could go to 
Webster and look up “put” and “away” and see clearly that the 
combination of the words do not equal divorce, which requires a 
legal process involving paperwork.

bg 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 was 
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.

rw I do not have to be an expert in ancient Greek to defeat my 
opponent’s proposition, which is that APOLUO, as used by Jesus in 
the text, means divorce.  All I have to do, which I have done, is 
get my opponent to admit that APOLUO means, “put away” and the 
rest is easy.  We speak English and we know what the English 
words involved means.  If we have any doubts, we can look them 
up.  That is what I have done, which has defeated Brian’s 
proposition and proves mine.

Regarding Kittel and my “ignorance and unfamiliarly with standard 
Bible study tools”: if familiarity with these “tools” are 
required for one to understand the Bible, then think how many 
people were lost before these “tools” became available.  And 
think about all the unfortunate ignoramuses that have not learned 
where the truth may be found, or who maybe just did not the 
financial ability to purchase these essential tools.  

I do not have access to Kittle’s works, so I do not really know 
what his book states about APOLUO.  But, for sake of argument, I 
shall accept that he thinks APOLUO means divorce, as Brian has 
asserted.  

First, if Brian were going to do a lexicon, and have several men 
take part in it, would he pick men who believed exactly as him?  
Of course he would.  He is moderator of a list and the other 
moderators, as well as the owner, agreed to not allow me to post 
to their list, even though they were saying things regarding me 
and my position that were not true.  Thus, even if Kittle’s work 
contained “opinions” of several others, who agreed with him, such 
does not prove they were correct.  All it proves is that he 
picked them carefully.  The best and most trustworthy 
“authority”, or scholarly work, are the translations that were 
done by a group of men from various faiths, and men who were not 
influenced by Catholicism or who would not consider some human 
book to be little to nothing short of the gospel.

bg 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.  

rw First, translations that are the works of a group of scholars 
of varying religious background are far more trustworthy in 
determining the meaning of a text than any “lexicon”.  I have 
been told that Thayer, and others that are deemed to be such 
authorities, are Anglican, which is to say they are of Catholic 
background.  This means they are going to be biased in their 
understanding of the CONTEXT, which they use as the basis for 
determining the meaning of APOLUO.  Frankly, if their thinking 
was that Jesus taught that divorced persons commit adultery if 
they marry, they would naturally define words to support that 
thinking.  I believe this is exactly what has happened in the 
case of APOLUO.

Second, my opponent does not even attempt to explain the fact 
that his position has God being redundant in Moses’ statement.  

As a reminder, here is my argument again: Brian has Moses saying, 
Write a bill of divorcement, put it into her hand and divorce 
her.

Brian has stated that he understands that there is more than one 
part to a divorce, but when it comes time to apply it he FORGETS 
the FACTS.

Third, it would be difficult for one to tell that my opponent is 
in the affirmative because he continually makes remarks that 
would have been appropriate when he was in the negative.  
Evidently, he realized he was not being successful in his effort 
to prove that APOLUO means divorce.  He continually talks about 
“put away” not meaning, “merely to separate from”.  I have said 
from the get-go, repeatedly, that such is not exactly the 
meaning, but that when a woman is “put away”, without the divorce 
papers, that such amounts to separation; and when a man takes 
such action he is dealing treacherously with his wife.  I have 
pointed out that a separation can be temporary, where both the 
husband and wife agree, and no sin is involved.  Nevertheless, my 
opponent keeps asserting that I do not know what a separation is 
and that I do not know what has happened when a wife has been 
“put away”.  Well, I do know, and I know what happens when he 
goes on and does what Moses commanded people of his day (Deut. 
24:1; Mark 10:3).  He has “loosed” her in fact, rather than in 
his “mind” and she is therefore then free to marry another.

Quoted from above: “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.”  

rw Evidently I cannot prove what Brian ask in his mind, because 
he does not want to see it, or just cannot.  However, what I can 
do is show that Brian’s own authorities say “put away” and “send 
away” are the same thing, and this defeats Brian’s doctrine.  
Notice that Strong says: “put (send) away”, which evidently 
means, “put away” or “send away”.

[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.

bg 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?

rw My opponent may have the support of some men who are self-
proclaimed authorities, and some may look upon their word as 
gospel, but the “contrast” that he has imagined, where he claims 
Jesus contradicted the Law, is no support for anything.  However, 
it does prove that he is willing to charge Jesus with something 
the Pharisees did not, even though it was what they were looking 
for.  Finally, the reaction of the disciples does not support 
Brian’s position, but mine.  Therefore, we see that Galloway’s 
only support for his doctrine is opinions of men and/or human 
authority.  While Brian thinks it is a “leg”, it is not one that 
will stand.  Like the sandy foundation for a house, it will fall 
when put to text.  As I stated, he has not a leg on which to 
stand.

Conclusion

The “traditional” doctrine, which Brian practices, cannot be true 
unless all of at least 17 assumptions are true.  One of those 
assumptions, as made by my opponent, is that only God can 
“unjoin”.  In other words, (according to him) a couple that has 
divorced is not divorced unless they do it in accordance with the 
way he sees that Matt. 19:9 teaches it.  Talk about “circular 
reasoning”!  If we allow assumptions, such as just noted, a man 
can prove any doctrine in the world.  For example, if we allow 
for the assumption that the Pope has authority on earth we can 
use “circular reasoning” and “get around” many of the teaching of 
the apostle Paul.  

Of course, if a man APOLUO’s (puts away) his wife, which amounts 
to separation, there is no “unjoining” or ending of the covenant.  
Nevertheless, my opponent insists on being inconsistent.  He 
wants to hold to the truth that “separation” is not divorce but 
continue to assert that when a man “puts away” his spouse (which 
obviously results in separation) he has actually divorced her, 
even though there is no evidence or implication that he provided 
her with the required “writ of divorcement”.  In other words, 
Brian seems to have some understanding of the truth but continues 
to assert that while APOLUO is properly translated to mean, “put 
away” it does not mean what it says, but means “divorce”.  

My opponent got it right when he said, “Separation looses 
nothing.  Divorce looses or frees from the marriage.”  However, 
he has refused to consider and honorably discuss one of the 
required ingredients of a legal/scriptural divorce.  In his post 
to the list on December 29th 2003, he wrote:

I will not argue or even look up what apostasion means, because 
it is irrelevant to your proposition. That apostasion means 
divorce does not exclude apoluo from also meaning divorce. You 
must prove apoluo does not mean divorce, it merely means to separate.

Well, I have proved that APOLUO does not mean divorce – that when 
one merely puts away his/her spouse separation is the result, 
rather than a legal/scriptural divorce.  Indeed, APOSTASION 
(defined as “divorce: writing of divorcement”) is involved in an 
actual divorce and unless the “writ” is presented to her/him no 
legal/scriptural divorce has taken place.  My opponent has freely 
admitted that separation is part of divorce, but it is the other 
main “part” – the “bill of divorce” (legal papers) that he has 
chosen to ignore.

Just as the Jewish men who were dealing treacherously with their 
wives by sending them out of the house, while ignoring the 
command to give them the “bill of divorcement”, were doing 
contrary to the will of God, my opponent is ignoring the “bill of 
divorcement” as well, and is doing contrary to the will of God. 
The consequences are the same as we have noted was true of God’s 
people of old.  People who want to be free and who want a 
marriage to satisfy their emotional and sexual needs are denied 
their freedom, as well as God’s tool to help them “avoid 
fornication” (1Cor 7:2).   My opponent’s doctrine requires that 
he tell some people that are legally married to a faithful spouse 
to deal treacherously with them – all because he too ignores the 
“bill of divorce” in his interpreting “put away” to include all 
the parts involved in divorce, rather than just what it says.  He 
has refused to go there. Nevertheless, those who want the truth 
will have to go there.  

I shall close with a quote from my second rebuttal:   “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.”    

Robert Waters