Refuting the Put Away Vs. Divorce Error

There is an error being taught that "put away" does not mean "divorce" and that Jesus was only referring to putting away without giving a certificate of divorce. To those teaching this error, adultery only occurs when one is "put way" and not properly divorced with a divorce certificate.

We refer to this as the “difference of meanings” or "change of meanings" theory, which assumes that the solution for what Jesus meant by his exception clause is found in there being a difference of meanings between “put away” and “divorce”.

A challenge has been given to the "change of meanings" theory.

The challenge is thus:

If put away does not mean divorce then we should be able to make a parrallel sentence showing the switch over .... Let's examine

Matt 5:31,32 is one long sentence:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1)That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) saving for the cause of fornication,
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Notice how line A is referring to what you call "divorce", since he is coming from Duet 24:1 by referring to the writing of divorce.

Now notice how Jesus refers to the same thing, in lines B and 1 but uses the term "put away". Can you see how it is very reasonable to view the sentence as early on establishing that "divorce" and 'put away' are simply interchangeable terms?

They claim there has to be a distinction between "divorce" and "put away" in Matt 5:31,32. They bring in Duet. 24 to say that based on Duet. 24, that is what makes the difference between "divorce" and "put away" necessary. But in reality, based solely on the NT scriptures of Matt 5:31,32; 19:9 and Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18, there is no actual difference between the words.

In Matt 5 Jesus says something like "but I say to you" 6 times. So 6 topics he brings up a topic and then addresses it likewise by something like, "but I say to you". Doesn't it make sense that when he says but I say to you he is referring to the same thing that is the topic of discussion?

For example about swearing; when he says but I say to you, does it make sense that he would refer to something else as what he refers to? Do you see what I mean? For example:
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Could we change the reiteration of what is being discussed in verse 34? It is talking about swearing from 33 and the "but I say unto you" is also about the same thing; it is about swearing, right? Can that be changed and it make sense? Let's try it:
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Talk loud not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

See I have changed 'swear not at all' to 'talk loud not at all'. It does not fit to change the topic. Yet you say in 5:31,32 the 'But iI say to you' changes topic to something else other than the topic identified which starts the topic in 31!!

In 5:31,32 he starts off talking about what you would recognize as an actual recognized "divorce", then when he says but I say to you, he switches over to talk about something that is not recognized; a mere putting away. I have not tried this before, but can you give a parallel sentence on any topic imaginable where this could be done after the same general format and make sense? In the example above about 'talk loud not at all, a nonsensical sentence is created. Literally, a nonsensical sentence is created also when the topic is switched over in Matt 5:32.

For those who say put way does not mean divorce...Provide an example of how that switch over is literally functional.

Here is another example of the challenge:

This is a challenge presented to those embracing the "different-meanings" theory, which asserts that "put away" is different than "divorce" and this provides the means to continue to allow divorce like Moses did.

Here are the 6 parts of Matt 5:31,32 broken down for easier identification:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) saving for the cause of fornication,
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Here is a parallel, for an example:
A) You have heard it said that leaving that door open during the summer is OK
B) but I say to you;
1) Whoever leaves that door open,
2) saving that someone installs the new screen door.
3) causes flies to get in the house,
4) and whoever sees it open and does not shut it will also be guilty.

Line 1 continues with the same topic as established in Line A.
Please provide a parallel where line 1, can switch to a different topic and make sense. Any background story to establish context is welcomed. The 'different-meanings' theory requires the topic to switch in line 1 after the "but I say unto you...". Therefore if the 'different-meanings' theory has any credibility, a sentence after the same sentence format should be able to be created that can demonstrate how such a switch to a different topic can work.

One of the top proponents of the "change of meanings" theory was given this challenge to prove his view. However, he failed to take the challenge and attempted to defend the put way vs. divorce error.

See the discussions with RW and many others who support this view below. Forum poster RW defends this view as forum poster LJ refutes this view. All forum poster's names have been changed to initials.

Some of the discussions are lengthy but they will give you the ammo needed to defeat the "change of meanings" theory.