Transcript THE PROPOSITION

THE PROPOSITION
(for the Gwin-Reeves Debate, Hopkinsville, KY 07-17,18-03)
“The Bible teaches that if a man puts
away his scriptural wife for a reason
other than fornication, and then
commits fornication, the original
wife may not remarry.”
Affirmative:
Negative:
Joel Gwin
Bill H. Reeves
1
Absolutes / Lk. 16:18
3
Adultery redefined
11
Against her, (See Mk. 10:11, 173)
Apoluo, Chorizo, Aphiemi
18
Arguments of the opponent
35
Background of Controversy
75
Binding, The _ Mentality
82
Categories, Two (Classif.)
97
Context, Stay with the
108
Correspondence: Joel / Bill
118
Deut. 24
133
Fellowship/Diverse Applications 137
Focus, Where does Jesus put?
141
Greek, 3_Words (See Apoluo, 18)
Irrelevant Fornication
145
Lk. 16:18 (See Absolutes, 3)
Marital Status
163
Mk. 10:11,12 / Mal. 2:14 –Against 170
Mental Divorce
177
Order, The _ Argument
188
Proposition, The, Why I Deny it
195
Put-away, Putting-Away
223
Questions for the opponent
230
Race to Court House
241
Race to Repudiation
248
“Refutations,” by the opponent
256
Repudiation occurs before civ. div. 260
Romans 13
262
Romans 14 & Unity in Diversity
274
Scenarios, Two Different
285
Scriptures and Com., See Apoluo 292
Silence of the Scriptures
322
Simplistic Argument, The
327
Summary charts
329
“The Scriptures Plainly Say”
341
Two Puttings-Away
347
Two Categories, (See Categories, 97)
Waiting Game, The
358
Who is the Put-away Woman?
361
Who Has The Right to Marry?
365
(See Summary Charts, 330)
Whose Putting-away?
431
X – 1 My Questions/His Answers 367
X – 2 His Questions/ My Answers 406
2
ABSOLUTES / LK. 16:18
The some brethren take Lk.16:18b in
the absolute.
Consider making
absolutes out of these texts (by
taking them out of context and then
proclaiming: “That’s what it says, in
black and white!”):
Rom. 14:14,20, nothing is unclean
of itself…all things indeed are clean.
Are homosexuality and bank robbing
clean?
3
1 Cor. 6:12, All things are lawful for
me. Are stealing, lying and fornication lawful?
2 Cor. 9:13, the liberality of [your]
contribution unto them and unto all.
Is church benevolence for saints
and non-saints alike?
Lk. 16:18b, whoever marries her
who is divorced (every woman who
is put away in all circumstances? …
4
the put-away woman whose husband dies? The “unmarried” /
“divorced” woman of 1 Cor. 7:11,
who wants to be reconciled to her
husband?)
Keep the “put-away woman” of the
controversy in context!
If Lk. 16:18b is to be taken in the
absolute, then 16:18a must also be
taken thusly:
5
16:18b, whoever marries her who is
divorced from her husband commits adultery (NKJ), “and this is
absolutely so!”
16:18a, Whoever divorces his wife
and marries another commits adultery (NKJ). So, if a man has a fornicating wife, he divorces her (for fornication) and marries another, he
then commits adultery. Right? …
6
Wrong! Well, what happened to the
“absolute”?
(Those few, who claim that there is
no authority for any remarriage, cite
Lk. 16:18a! To them the passage is
absolute! Are theyin right? No remarriage under any circumstances at
all? “Well, that’s what it says, in
black and white!”)
7
Let’s check this “black and white”:
Does Luke 16:18a apply in every
case in which a man puts away his
wife and marries again?
If yes, then he cannot put away a
wife for fornication and remarry.
Does Luke 16:18b apply in every
case in which a man marries a wife
who has been put away from a
husband? If yes, why? Purely because of her being the object …
8
of an ungodly spouse’s unscriptural
repudiation? Since when does ungodliness on the part of the ungodly
annul, obliterate, reduce to nothing,
make of none effect, invalidate, negate, make void, frustrate, deprive
one of, a divine permission?
In Lk. 16:18 there is no cause of
fornication involved in the spouse’s
putting away his mate! But, in the ..
9
proposition, the wife has had adultery committed against her: “and
then (the husband) commits fornication.” Here the cause of fornication
is in evidence!
In Lk. 16:18b, adultery is committed
by the second man because the wife
who was put away, and the ungodly
husband who put her away, are still
bound to each other. This is the
reason!
(see 44,45)
10
ADULTERY REDEFINED
Adultery, from Latin ad (to) and
alter (another); i.e., sexual contact of
a person with another beside the
spouse to whom God joined him in
marriage. A spouse joins himself to
another person, making three, instead of the two that God joined, and
who became one flesh.
11
Adultery is committed, not because of one’s being a “put-away”
person per se, but because of his
being a person already bound to a
mate in marriage, and who is now
cohabiting with another person who
is not his mate.
Adulterate = literally, to debase,
corrupt, make impure, by foreign
admixture.
12
For example, a milk vender adds
water to whole milk, thus
adulterating the milk. -- Mt. 12:39,
why was that generation called
“adulterous” by Jesus? Because
they were unfaithful to Jehovah by
joining themselves to foreign gods.
Some brethren are redefining
“adultery” to mean illicit sexual relations with another after becoming a
13
“put-away person,” and precisely
because one is a “put-away person”!
Adultery is committed, not because one is a “put-away person”
per se, but because one, bound to a
mate in marriage (that’s two persons) adds another (a third person),
and thus debases, corrupts, makes
impure the marriage covenant with
14
that foreign admixture.
The sin of adultery focuses on
one’s being bound to a mate, and
not on one’s being a put-away person. Let’s not redefine adultery!
Adultery is not determined by
some specific something that has
previously happened to the person
who commits the sin,but by the fact..
15
that the one committing the sin is a
person already bound to one by the
marriage bond and therefore not free
to become one flesh with another
person.
Being one who has been healed,
promoted, educated, put-away, etc.,
is totally irrelevant to the issue of
adultery. The issue is: Is the one ...
16
who is becoming one flesh with
another, a person already bound to a
mate by the marriage bond, or is he
free from that bond to be joined to
another?
17
THE THREE GREEK WORDS USED
IN CONNECTION WITH PUTTING
ASUNDER WHAT GOD HAS JOINED:
Apoluo, Chorizo, Aphiemi
The English word “divorce” (from
the Latin, divertere = to divert, to
turn, to go different ways) means
separate, put away, disunite.
e.g., “He divorced himself from that
bad habit”.
18
But, Webster says that “1. In law,
(it means) a legal dissolution of the
bonds of matrimony, or the formal
separation of husband and wife by a
court”.
That meaning is restricted to law!
Americans usually have only this
definition of “divorce” in mind in discussing Bible teaching on marriage,
putting away, and remarriage!
19
This particular use in LAW of the
word, “divorce”, in NOT the meaning
of the three Greek words that the
N. T. employs in connection with the
separation of husband and wife.
Notice the definitions given by
Thayer in his Greek-English Lexicon:
(A Lexicon of one language gives meanings of its words in a different language).
20
THE THREE GREEK WORDS Apoluo
Thayer’s definitions in blue italics:
Basically To loose from, sever by
loosening, undo Heb. 13:23, Timothy
has been set at liberty.
1. To set free. Lk. 13:12, Woman
thou art loosed from thine infirmity.
(physical healing)
2. To let go, dismiss. Mat. 15:23, …
21
Send her away, for she crieth after
us. (Canaanitish woman)
To bid depart, send away. Mt.14:15,
send the multitudes away (to buy
food).
3. To let go free, to release. Lk.
23:22, I will therefore chastise him
and release him.
Lk. 6:37, release and ye shall be
released (NKJV: forgive and you
shall be forgiven).
22
4. “Used of divorce, as apoluo ten
gunaika to dismiss from the house,
to repudiate”.
Mt. 19:9, whosoever shall put away
his wife, except for fornication, and
shall marry…
(So, whosoever
shall repudiate his wife or dismiss
her from the house – bhr)
5. Middle voice, properly to send
one’s self away, to depart.
…
23
Acts 28:25, when they agreed not
among themselves, they departed.
The use of the word apoluo does
not necessarily imply nor involve:
Courthouses, trials, writs, warrants, judges, lawyers, clerks, bailiffs, juries, witnesses, legal filings,
or any particular procedure.
Such are not inherent in apoluo! …
24
It has no inherent connection with
civil authorities or legal procedures!
In every passage apoluo means the
same thing: To loose from, sever by
loosening, undo.
There is no civil, legal, connotation in this Greek word!
We have no reason nor right to
put it there!
25
Note that the English word, divorce,
is not in Thayer’s definitions (given
in blue italics).
THE THREE GREEK WORDS Chorizo
Basically, to separate, divide, part,
put asunder.
Mat. 19:6, What therefore God hath
joined together, let no man put
asunder (or, separate--bhr).
26
Rom. 8:36, Who shall separate (or,
divorce --bhr) us from the love of
Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish,
or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Heb. 7:26, For such a high priest
became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners….
(divorced from sinners—bhr)
27
a. to leave a husband or wife: of
divorce, 1 Cor. 7:10,11,15, the wife
depart not from her husband, (but
should she depart, let her remain
unmarried, or else be reconciled to
her husband) …. Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart. (Gr.,
separate one’s self--bhr).
b. to depart, go away. Philem. 15,
For perhaps he (Onesimus) was …
28
therefore parted [from thee] for a
season, that thou shouldest have
him for ever.
Acts 18:1, After these things he
departed from Athens…
There is no civil, legal, connotation in this Greek word! We have
no reason nor right to put it there!
Note that the English word, divorce,
is not in Thayer’s definitions (given
in italics).
29
THE THREE GREEK WORDS - Aphiemi
Basically, to send from one’s self.
1. To send away, a. to bid go away
or depart. Mat. 13:36, Then Jesus left
the multitude, and went into the
house. (NKJV, sent the multitude
away). -- (He “divorced” himself
of them, but he didn’t go to a lawyer
and courthouse to do it!)
30
“of a husband putting away his
wife, 1 Cor. 7:11-13”, … and that the
husband leave not his wife. 12 But
to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any
brother hath an unbelieving wife and
she is content to dwell with him, let
him not leave her. 13 And the woman
that hath an unbelieving husband,
and he is content to dwell with her,
let her not leave her husband.
31
The NASV says, instead of “leave”,
“send away”: the husband should
not send his wife away; let him not
send her away; let her not send her
husband away.
A spouse leaves his mate by
sending him away! (NKJV says,
“divorce”, vv. 12,13, but in its basic
meaning of make separation).
32
b. to send forth, yield, emit.
c. to let go, let alone, let be,
disregard; to leave, not to discuss
now.
d. to let go, give up, a debt; remit,
forgive.
e. to give up, keep no longer.
2. to permit, allow, not to hinder.
3. to leave, go away from one.
33
There is no civil, legal, connotation in this Greek word!
We have no reason nor right to
put it there!
Note that the English word, divorce,
is not in Thayer’s definitions (given
in italics).
34
ARGUMENTS OF THE OPPONENT
1. Rom. 13, 36
2. No “her” in Mt. 19:9, 38
5. Mt. 19:9, one putting-away,not two, 49
6. “Mental Divorce”, 51
7. “Where do you get authority for a put-away woman to put away her
fornicating husband?”, 55
8. Two Puttings-away, 58
9. Where do you get “in the sight of God”? 62
10. Marital Status, 64
35
ARGUMENTS OF THE OPPONENT
1. Rom. 13:1, Let every soul be in
subjection to the higher powers.
“If the law of the land demands
legal divorce proceedings, they must
be recognized and followed.”
Not all civil governments demand
that to live together (as husband and
wife) a marriage license must be obtained. (Note common-law marriage).
36
Their role is simply that of registering the marriage for purposes of determining legally just who are married (for purposes of claims of property rights, benefits, legitimacy of
children, etc.)
It is admitted by all brethren that
there can be places and times where
marriage and divorce take place
without any civil procedure!
37
So, civil procedure does not inhere
in marrying, nor in putting away,
dismissal, repudiation!
2. “No ‘her’ in Matt. 19:9, just “a
divorced woman”. (No definite
article in the Greek; therefore any
and all divorced women).”
Greek: “he who marries a put away
one (feminine gender) commits adultery” = marries any dismissed …
38
woman of this context; i.e, any woman put away for any cause and
against whom no fornication is committed!
The “civil procedure” brethren
force all civilly divorced women into
this context, even those unscripturally divorced by a fornicator-husband, and against whom adultery
has been committed!
They deny the innocent woman the
39
right that Christ gave her to put away the fornicator-husband, and remarry, just because some unbelieving judge granted a civil divorce to
him before she got to the courthouse to civilly divorce him.
They make man-legislated, civil
procedure the reason why every
“divorced woman” can’t remarry.
This Jesus did not do! The putaway woman for any cause is still …
40
bound to her marriage vows, and
what God has bound man should not
put asunder (Mt. 19:6).
Those who claim that the “divorced woman may not remarry” at the
same time admit that her husband,
that legally divorced her for any
cause, is still bound to her in marriage! They admit that he is not free
to remarry!
41
So, the civil divorce proceedings
did not affect their marriage bond at
all in God's sight per God’s laws.
How, then, can they make the civil
proceedings the reason why particular women may not remarry?
3. “Luke 16:18 says, whoever marries a divorced woman”.
They cite the versions that so read!
42
They make an absolute out of
16:18b, but not out of 16:18a! (nor
out of Mk. 10:11,12). Inconsistency!
Both parts, a and b, are to be
understood in the context of the full
subject (per Matt. 19:9, any woman
put away for just any cause. The
cause of fornication is not in this
context). Otherwise, no remarriage
is justified (a few take this position!)
43
If a woman is divorced for any
cause, and then her husband dies,
she would still be a “put-away woman,” and always will be. It’s history. It happened to her!
Rom. 7:3, if the husband die, she is
free from the law. May she remarry?
Some brethren say, Yes. So, it is
obvious that the blanket statement,
“it is a sin to marry a divorced woman”, is an over-statement.
44
Others can qualify the phrase,“putaway woman”, when the husband
dies, but we can’t when the innocent
one is civilly divorced and the husband has committed fornication!
The woman of the controversy (the
dismissed woman who then, because of fornication by her husband,
puts him away and remarries), is not
in this context of Luke 16:18b!
45
4. “Order: Matt. 19:9 -- Marriage,
divorce for fornication, may remarry,
versus
Marriage, divorce, fornication, 2nd
(post-civil-divorce) divorce, when
fornication is committed AFTER the
fact of divorcement = mental divorce
by the one divorced, may remarry.”
The above are contrived “orders”.
Let me express them. They are …
46
saying that: Marriage, fornication,
while still married the innocent is
first to initiate and finalize the civil
procedure of divorce for fornication,
and may remarry,
versus
Jesus’ permission: innocent spouse
repudiates the fornicating spouse,
and remarries.
47
There is validity in the “order argument”, if it is rightly and fairly stated,
to represent truly the issue at hand.
One bases his contrived “order” argument on his injection of a different
scenario into the one that Jesus
treated; & so, “two” different orders!
Actually, the innocent husband,
and the innocent wife, do the same
thing: They are both bound to each ..
48
one fornicates, the other repudiates,
and may remarry. Same order!
5. “There are not two puttingsaway in Mt. 19:9, but only one.”
Of course not, because Christ is
not talking about two different scenarios! There is only one puttingaway (approved by God): that of the
innocent one putting away the guilty! Both the man and the woman are
49
given that prerogative by Christ.
No human court may nullify a Godgiven prerogative or right.
Yes, Christians at times suffer (for
Christ), but not because of any restrictions of His, but rather because
of the actions and restrictions of
men!
50
6. “’Mental divorce’, a put-away
woman simply in her mind thinks: ‘I
divorce you’”.
A prejudicial term, and misrepresentation!
Joseph was minded to put Mary
away (Mt.1:19). Thought precedes
action.
Is there anything mental (mind involved) in civil divorce? If so, is it
“mental divorce”?
51
Should we refer to “non-mental
brethren”? Is their divorce or repudiation totally “mindless”?
Some inject civil procedure into
“put away”, and then claim that the
put-away can’t put away. But, yes he
can! Both can repudiate!
What they mean is: the civilly divorced can’t civilly divorce.
That’s right. A civilly divorced …
52
person, as well as the one who filed
for civil divorce, are now registered
by the law as two divorced persons,
both of them!
One can’t then turn around and
ask for a second registering. That
would be meaningless.
But biblical “putting away” IS NOT
civil procedure! So, a put-away person can also do the same thing: put
away!
53
Our civil-procedure-brethren act
as though when a spouse civilly
divorces his mate that the mate is
the only one who is divorced!
But, BOTH are now civilly divorced!
Now, if an innocent spouse civilly
divorces his mate for fornication,
may he remarry? Yes, we all say.
But wait, since he got a divorce, he
is now a divorced person, and a …
54
divorced person may not remarry,
we are told by the civil-procedurebrethren.
Let no one say that he isn’t a divorced person; the law says that
both of them are!
7. “Where do you get authority for
a put-away woman to put away her
fornicating husband?”
Actually in Mt. 19:9a! So, where do
55
you get authority for “an innocent,
undivorced, wife to put away a fornfornicating husband and remarry?”
You can’t read that particular
phraseology in Mt. 19:9 nor in Mk.
10:12. But both questions, as
phrased, find their answers in what
is implied in those passages.
God is not a respecter of persons;
so, the principle taught implies the
above conclusions drawn.
56
But note: They don’t frame the
question like this: “Where do you
get authority for a civilly divorced
woman to civilly divorce her fornicating husband?”
They know that such is impossible,
and that no one is advocating that!
But, if putting-away means civil
procedure, why shouldn’t they
phrase their question as it is above?
57
Some brethren use “put away”
when it suits them, and “divorce”
(i.e., civil procedure) when it suits
them. They are playing word games!
8. “You advocate two puttingsaway. The Bible doesn’t speak of a
second putting-away.”
Do you advocate “two baptisms”
(as in the case of one who was baptized by a Baptist preacher, and then
58
who learned the truth and was baptized into Christ)?
Cp. Acts 19:3-5. The Scriptures
don’t call this a “second baptism”.
They were “baptized into the name
of the Lord Jesus”.
False baptisms are accommodatingly called baptisms, but there is
really only one baptism.
False worship is called worship
(Matt. 15:9), but it is not homage …
59
to God (true worship).
In the same way there can be a
marriage but not in the sight of God,
and a divorce that is not in the sight
of God ( = approved by God).
There is only ONE putting away on
the part of the innocent one. The
guilty’s action does not negate the
innocent’s right to act.
60
A legally divorced woman can’t
repudiate him? Well, just let him
come around for meals and sex and
he will find out!
Leaving a spouse is repudiation
(1Cor.7:10,11), with or without civil
procedure.
We all agree that in the “waiting
game” there are two puttings-away:
each spouse agrees to the divorce.
61
The divorce is by mutual consent.
Each repudiates the other.
There can be any number of puttings-away, but there is only one
putting-away that God approves, and
that is the one exercised by the innocent spouse who repudiates his
fornicator-mate.
9. “Where do you get ‘in the sight
of God’? God may not approve of it..
62
but it still is a marriage / divorce
(e.g., Mk. 6:17).”
Deut. 13:18, to do that which is
right in the eyes of Jehovah thy God.
Two persons may be divorced and
married to others, but in the eyes of
God still be bound by the marriage
bond to each other.
Herodius was still Philip’s wife
(v.16), altho’ Herod had married her.
63
It was not lawful (v.18) = not in the
eyes of God.
10. “God does tell us that the only
lawful divorce is that which is for the
cause of fornication. On this we
agree. BUT, God specifies the marital status needed to exercise such a
privilege (they must be married, not
put-away)”.
Where do you read that: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except..
.
64
for fornication (and provided that he
is not a put-away person, is still living with his wife, and is the first one
to initiate the divorce),and shall marry another committeth adultery”?
Brethren continue to put a different
scenario into Mat. 19:9.
The man who legally divorces his
wife (a process that takes time--till it
is finalized) has already repudiated
his wife and left her, as far as living..
65
living with her is concerned. So, he
is not a married (living with a wife)
man at the time that he gets a finalized, legal divorce!
Or, does she continue to be
“married” to him (sleeping with him,
cooking and washing clothes for
him, going about together with him
as if nothing happened, etc.) till the
day he gets his divorce decree?
66
Your divorcing man is not married
either!
Which passage states that God
“specifies the marital status needed
to exercise such a privilege (they
must be married, not put-away)”?
Not Mat. 19:9a! Jesus was not
asked about a put-away mate, and
so did not address such a scenario.
He was asked about a married man
putting away his wife for any cause!
67
Jesus did not say, nor intimate:
“Now what I say goes only for a married person, not for one who is putaway”.
The husband who puts away his
wife, or even civilly divorces her, for
any cause, is just as bound to her
afterward as he was before!
His marital status in God’s law is
still the same. They both are still …
68
bound to each other. Neither the repudiation nor the civil procedure
changed a thing in God’s sight.
Neither has the right to remarry,
because no fornication is involved.
Once the cause of fornication is in
evidence, Christ’s law permits the
innocent one to repudiate and to
remarry.
69
But note: The “marital status” of
the mate, who initializes (and finalizes) the civil divorce, is not married
at the time of filing for divorce!
The usual scenario: He repudiates
his mate and later begins the civil
procedures. (The living together,
marriage, ceases and the procedures later begin; & the finalizing is
yet later!)
70
If she, upon hearing his repudiation, packs up and leaves, or runs
him out of the house, the poor guy is
not then “married” (living together),
and so doesn’t have the correct “marital status” (per the civil-procedurebrethren) to file for divorce.
“God considers the marriage status and the marriage bond to be
different …
71
Let’s not confuse what God approves with what God allows.”
The issue is: Does God “allow”
with approval?
Of course God’s Word records
some things that man does, or can
do, such as putting away and remarrying. Is that what you mean by
“allowing”? The Bible records some
sins of man; does that mean that
“God allows man to sin”? …
72
To “allow” can imply permission.
Some civil-procedure-brethren
make their so-called “marital status”
a constituent part of God’s law concerning the innocent spouse’s repudiating a fornicating mate and then
remarrying.
Man certainly can do what he
wants to do, but God, who has recorded in the Bible some such ….
73
things, teaches that he authorizes
only the innocent spouse to put
away a fornicating mate and remarry, if he so desires.
Human courts cannot authorize
otherwise.
74
BACKGROUND OF THE CONTROVERSY
Faithful brethren, disagreeing with
Homer Hailey’s false doctrine (aliens
not amenable to the law of Christ,
therefore may marry / divorce any
number of times before conversion,
but then are answerable to Christ’s
law on marriage, putting away, and
remarriage), but fellowshipping him.
75
Some other faithful brethren began
to ask: “How can we criticize them
when we also differ on this other
subject, yet fellowship each other?”
Some brethren accuse other faithful brethren of “mental divorce,”
which they claim, as they define the
term, leads to adultery, and so, they
can’t fellowship them!
76
“Mental divorce”= Misrepresentation
of many brethren!
All sane action preceded by
thought (“mental”). Note Acts
26:9,10 (I thought …. I did).
Many do not commonly speak of
“mental repudiation” nor of “mental
putting away”. Why not? Because
such phrases do not denote civil
procedure (courthouse action)!
77
But there is more to putting away
than a mere thought!
They consistently use the phrase,
“mental divorce”, rather than “mental putting away” or “mental repudiation”, for effect.
Repeatedly they reply in every
case: “The man who marries a
divorced woman commits adultery”.
78
But Jesus in context is speaking of
whoever marries a woman put-away
for any cause and where no cause of
fornication is in evidence (any and
everyone of such women!)
They are forcing a woman of another context (that in which adultery
has been committed against her)
into the text!
“We are dealing with what happens after the divorce has already ..
79
occurred with no fornication involved in the original divorce proceedings”.
These brethren insist upon this
proposition, because they want to
use texts that deal with repudiation
for any cause (excepting fornication), and then apply, in the absolute, the phrase: “whoever marries a
divorced woman commits adultery”.
In doing this they confuse two different scenarios.
80
81
THE “BINDING” MENTALITY
In any cycle of apostasy, there will
be brethren who, in their effort to
combat liberalism, will take up the
“binding” mentality. They are so opposed to liberalism that they think
that they find solution, in part, by
stipulating man-made restrictions or
requisites.
82
Note some parallels of this “binding”
mentality:
1. Latin-Americans are largely of a
Catholic background. Converts are
strongly opposed to Catholicism. So
some bind on others the prohibition
against the “Christmas tree” because to them it represents Catholicism!
I’m against Catholicism as much
as they, but I may use the …
83
“Christmas tree” in a way totally
divorced from Catholicism.
2. Most brethren are strongly opposed to immodesty. So, some bind
on women the prohibition against
wearing pants, or blue jeans, some
claiming that “pants are a man’s
garment and that dresses and skirts
are a woman’s garment.”
I’m against immodesty as much as
they, but I’ll defend a woman’s right..
84
to wear a modest pant. (Some dresses and skirts are very immodest!) I
will not proscribe any certain type of
garment! I will simply advocate
modesty in any style of clothing.
3. Brethren are strongly opposed
to idolatry. Any non-meat-eater of
Rom. 14, whose opposition to eating
meat sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8:4ff)
is based on his opposition to idolatry, proscribes the eating of such ..
85
meat and condemns the brother who
does eat it (although not as to an
idol because he knows that “no idol
is anything in the world” -- 8:4).
I am against idolatry as much as
they, but I will defend the right to eat
meat as meat, even though it has
been involved in a dedicatory service to idols (1 Tim. 4:4,5).
4. “We are against adultery and ..
86
therefore cannot fellowship anyone
who condones adultery.”
I am against adultery as much as
they, but I will defend the innocent
spouse’s God-given right to repudiate a fornicator-husband, and to
remarry.
5. “You have … brethren encouraging fellowship with those who practice and teach that one who is put
away can later remarry while their ..
87
ex-spouse is living. Jesus identifies
it as adultery, but brethren are identifying it as ‘agreeing in principle but
differing in application’.”
“… defend the position that would
allow one who has been put away to
later put away”.
“…. examination of the truth on the
post-civil-divorce putting away …. a
teaching that will permit adulterous
marriages.”
88
This is misrepresentation! I do NOT
believe that “one who is put away
can later remarry while their exspouse is living”, unless the innocent spouse puts away the guilty
one for fornication, and then remarries!
Jesus does NOT call adultery that
which results from an innocent
spouse’s putting away a mate who ..
89
is guilty of fornication and from her
then remarrying.
The Scriptures give the innocent
mate the right to put away and remarry,but do not insist that he do so.
Whether one has been unscripturally divorced by a civil court, or
not, if his mate is guilty of fornication, God gives the innocent one the
right to put away and remarry.
90
Man’s legislations and actions do
not nullify God-given permissions!
“post-civil-divorce putting away” is
a creation of thinking that injects another scenario into the issue that
Jesus confronted and attended. The
opponent misapplies Jesus’ words
in Mt. 19:9, etc., to an entirely different scenario, and then jumps to his
conclusions!
91
“… the post-civil-divorce putting
away …. a teaching that will permit
adulterous marriages …”
Look what this quote shows:
1. The civil-procedure-brethren see
only legal action in what Jesus calls
“putting away”, by saying, “postcivil-divorce”.
2. Why didn’t our brother say, “the
post-civil-putting away putting
away”?
92
Why “divorce” in the first phrase,
and “putting away” in the second?
Because he doesn’t want the divorced person able to divorce! He distinguishes between divorce and put
away.
A put-away person may also put
away! Both spouses can do so!
Obviously a civilly divorced person cannot turn around and civilly ..
93
divorce the person who civilly divorced him!
The legal registration of the civil
divorce has already taken place and
cannot be duplicated,for such would
serve no purpose whatsoever!
But, “put away”, as the Scriptures
use the phrase, does not mean civil
procedure!
Anyone may put away (with or
without God’s approval). Yes, a …
94
civilly divorced person may put away a spouse. It happens every day
in this world. Just ask anyone who
has done it!
A person who puts away, divorces
(in the primary sense of the word,
which is “separate”). He does not
civilly divorce (in the legal sense of
the word), but he divorces! (separates himself from another, or dismisses the person).
95
Our civil-procedure-brethren can’t
see anything but a courthouse in the
word “divorce” and then they apply
that sense of the divorce to the “putting away” of which Jesus speaks!
Jesus wasn’t talking about
courthouse action!
96
TWO CATEGORIES OF PERSONS
Jesus did not label anyone simply
as being a “put-away person,” any
more than he labeled anyone simply
as being a “putting-away person.”
He did not employ nomenclature!
He did not call somebody a something.
He stated the consequence of
someone DOING a certain thing (put
away for every cause, except …
97
fornication) and remarrying, and of
someone else DOING a certain thing
(marrying one who is put away for
every cause, except fornication).
Jesus does not contrast a category
of people as “putting-away persons”
with a different category called “putaway persons.” This is man’s concoction.
What Jesus states is the conse- …
98
quence for both husband and wife
when an unscriptural repudiation
takes place: both commit adultery
upon remarrying because neither
one has been loosed from the marriage bond by God.
Jesus did not talk about categories or classifications of persons.
Jesus taught the consequences
for two people bound by God in …
99
marriage, upon remarriage by either
one, when no cause of fornication
has been in evidence. He also
taught the consequence of a third
person marrying one who is still
bound to a mate in marriage.
Jesus did not say that, “Whosoever, being a ‘putting-away person,’
puts away for fornication may remarry without committing adultery,” as ..
100
if he would also say, that “Whosoever, being a ‘put-away person,’ may
not put away for fornication and remarry without committing adultery.”
Jesus did not classify spouses as
being either a “putting-away”
spouse, or a “put-away” spouse, a
“putting-awayer,” or a “put-awayer.”
Such categorizing is a contrivance
of man. Jesus said: Whosoever, and
he!
101
What Jesus did say is,“whosoever”
puts away for fornication may remarry without committing adultery, and
thereby he teaches that any spouse
who has that CAUSE for putting away and remarrying, may exercise
the divine right to do so! No ungodly action of an ungodly mate can deprive the innocent spouse of that divine right!
102
Pure repetition of a contrived statement (“where do the Scriptures
speak of a ‘put-away person’ putting
away?”) in time comes to be accepted by those who don’t analyze.
To whom did Jesus address himself in Mt. 19:9b ?
He did not address himself to
“those who are put away;” he addressed himself to the “he” who …
103
marries one whom an ungodly
spouse put away not for the cause of
fornication!
He did not say that “a put-away
person” may or may not do a particular thing; he said that “HE that
marrieth her when she is put away
COMMITTETH ADULTERY”! That’s
what he said. Stay with the context!
Jesus did NOT categorize persons,
104
saying that “put-away” persons are
not permitted to do so and so.
He said (Mt. 19:9b) that he who
marries such a person (put away for
every cause except fornication) is
going to commit adultery!
Jesus gives the innocent spouse
the right to put away for fornication
and to remarry. Jesus also said that
(in this scenario where no cause of ..
105
fornication is involved), the consequence for him that marries one so
put-away commits adultery.
“Only one person is given the right
to divorce and to remarry another
with God’s approval – that is the innocent party who puts away his or
her mate for the cause of fornication (Matthew 5:32; 19:9)”
That is correct! That is what I also
affirm. My opponent won’t leave it …
106
there, as Jesus taught it. He must
add his proviso to it: “that is the
innocent party, provided he has not
previously been put away by his
fornicator-mate, ……”
Jesus says: Whosoever does
something (puts away for fornication) …
Some brethren say: Only the putting-awayer may do something (put
away for fornication).
107
STAY WITH THE CONTEXT
Some are ignoring, or perverting,
the context.
“The present controversy is, in
reality, over the presupposition that
there is authority for a person who
has been put away to employ a subsequent “putting away” and remarriage for post-divorce fornication.”
Not so; note: 1. The present controversy is, in reality, over the
…
108
presupposition” that some one’s
being the object of another’s ungodly action (being put-away unscripturally by a mate who then commits fornication) is the determinant
in the God-given right to repudiate
and remarry.
Jesus put no one in a particular
“category” and then declared that
any of that category could never ….
109
remarry. He put the cause of fornication as the sole right for any innocent spouse to repudiate the guilty
mate and to remarry.
2. There is authority, Mt. 19:9a, for
an innocent spouse to put away a
mate guilty of fornication and to remarry.
3. The “put-away person” to whom
Jesus refers is one put-away for any
cause except fornication!
110
The “put-away person” of the present controversy is one against
whom fornication has been committed. Stay with the context!
Brethren take the “put-away person” of Jesus’ discussion, and inject him into a scenario such as the
one covered by our brother’s proposition that says: “and then commits
fornication.”
111
4. Jesus put no time-limit on the
commission of the fornication that
becomes the sole cause for repudiation and remarriage; he did not say
“pre” nor “post” anything! Such is a
proviso of human origin, not divine!
Whether one is a putting-away person, or a put-away person, has nothing to do with the right to repudiate
and remarry; that is determined by ..
112
the cause of fornication.
The issue has to do with fornication. What an ungodly spouse does,
or what an innocent spouse has
done to him, doesn't affect the marriage bond or covenant in the
least. God controls that, and bases
any changes to that bond or covenant on the cause of fornication.
Some are not content to leave it
there, staying with the issue.
113
Whoever marries a “putting-away”
man (who puts away not for fornication) commits adultery. (Mt.19:9a)
Whoever marries a “put-away” woman (who is put away not for fornication) commits adultery. (Mt. 19:9b)
Why is this? Because the man is a
“putting-away” man? Because the
woman is a “put-away” woman? No!
It’s because there was no fornication
114
in evidence to be the cause for the
putting away, and the being put
away, and because both spouses
therefore are still bound by the
marriage bond to each other.
In all the passages (Mt., Mk. Lk.)
the one putting away committed
adultery upon remarrying! Nothing
concerning remarriage is directed to
the one who is put away. Yet, my
opponent makes it everything!
115
Jesus hinges the case on fornication! Others want to hinge the case
on the fact that the woman is the object of an ungodly husband’s actions
in putting her away!
If the husband and wife of Mt. 19:9,
after the unscriptural putting-away,
are reconciled to each other, and
then the wife commits adultery
against him, may the putting-away ..
116
husband put her away and remarry?
If no, is it because he is a “puttingaway” man? If yes, is not a “puttingaway” man remarrying and thus
committing adultery? (After all, Lk.
16:18a, taken in the absolute, says:
“Everyone that putteth away his
wife, and marrieth another,
committeth adultery”!)
117
CORRESPONDENCE
My proposed affirmative: “The
Scriptures teach that when fornication occurs, the innocent spouse,
one bound by the marriage bond, is
given the right to repudiate the fornicating mate to whom he has been
bound by God, and to remarry.”
Bro. Gwin: “I would be willing to
sign this proposition and defend it
myself!”
118
I wrote: “You do NOT believe this
proposition that admits of no exception(s). (If you would affirm this proposition in debate, I would moderate
for you in that debate!)”
“You put a condition to that proposition. You will affirm it, ONLY if it is
worded like this:
“The Scriptures teach that when
fornication occurs, the innocent
spouse, one bound by the marriage..
119
bond, is given the right to put away
the fornicating mate to whom he has
been bound by God, PROVIDED THAT
HE HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY
DIVORCED BY HIS UNGODLY MATE (or
words to that effect),and to remarry.”
“Now, THIS is what you believe!
You do not believe my proposition
as worded, because as it is worded it
admits of no conditions or exceptions.”
120
Bro. Gwin: “I cannot deny your proposition as worded. If you will add
the ‘CAPS’ portion added below, I
will deny your proposition.”
"The Scriptures teach that when
fornication occurs, the innocent
spouse (EVEN IF HE HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY DIVORCED BY HIS UNGODLY
MATE), one bound by the marriage
bond, is given the right to..
121
put away the fornicating mate to
whom he has been bound by God,
and to remarry."
Bro. Gwin: “Since you will not write
your affirmative in a manner that addresses the issues of our differences, I will accept your original offer
to be in the affirmative for both evenings.”
122
The two propositions side by side:
“The Scriptures teach that when fornication occurs, the innocent spouse, one
bound by the marriage bond, is given the
right to repudiate the fornicating mate to
whom he has been bound by God, and to
remarry.”
“The Bible teaches that if a man puts
away his scriptural wife for a reason
other than fornication and then commits
fornication, the original wife may not remarry.”
123
One-man debate! My brother gets
up and affirms my proposition for 30
minutes—he says he believes it. (I’ll
be his moderator!)
Then he gets up and denies it for
30 minutes (because it allows the
innocent spouse, without his
proviso attached -- EVEN IF HE HAS
BEEN PREVIOUSLY DIVORCED BY HIS
UNGODLY MATE --, to repudiate the
fornicator-mate and to remarry).
124
Jesus’ words imply that whosoever puts away his wife for fornication and remarries does not commit
adultery – Mt. 19:9a.
My opponent’s words imply that
whosoever puts away his wife for
fornication, provided that he was not
previously put away, and remarries
does not commit adultery.
If one denies this human proviso,
some are ready to disfellowship him!
125
My proposition as worded is what I
believe and practice. This is where I
take my stand.
“The Scriptures teach that when
fornication occurs, the innocent
spouse, one bound by the marriage
bond, is given the right to repudiate
the fornicating mate to whom he has
been bound by God, and to remarry.”
126
This is the principle given by Jesus
in Mt. 19:9a. This is what I have
taught since 1943. Here is where I
take my stand. Herein is where we
should all unite.
I wrote: “You need to understand,
my brother, that the position I hold
does not draw lines of fellowship. I
am perfectly willing for you to hold
your scruple against the innocent’s
repudiating and remarrying when …
127
fornication is committed against him
by a mate who has already put him
away. Such an innocent one does
not sin in not putting away and remarrying. But when you bind your
scruple on others, and disfellowship
those who disagree with your scruple (as you have already done), obviously I cannot fellowship that.”
128
A reader’s response (taken from a
web site):
“I am surprised that Bill Reeves
takes that position. I wish he was
man enough to meet a seasoned
preacher rather than insisting on a
boy just starting meet him. This
seems evidence to me that he knows
the weakness of his position.”05-11-03
129
(01-27-03) Dear Joel: Inasmuch as
you have withdrawn your proposal
for you and me to debate at Suwanee, consider the matter closed.
Brotherly, Bill H. Reeves
“If you are insistent on making restrictive conditions for this debate,
then I need to know what they are.
Please respond with your terms….
Sincerely, Joel”
130
“You are the one who proposed a
debate with the terms that you and I
do the debating at Suwanee. I didn’t
make any conditions at all,restrictive
or otherwise, ‘for this debate’ that
you proposed; I simply agreed to
your proposal …. You know good
and well that I had no “terms” regarding what you proposed. I didn't
“insist" on a single thing; I simply
agreed to what you proposed.” B.R.
131
“I am totally (100%) willing to
debate the issue on the terms that
you originally agreed to … Sincerely
Joel Gwin.”
Now, what purpose is served in the
web master’s publicizing of this evil
surmising?
Nothing but defamation of character!
(But, “with me it is a very
small thing that I should be judged
of man’s judgment”– 1 Cor. 4:3)
132
Deut. 24:1-3 (NASV)
When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she
finds no favor in his eyes because
he has found some indecency in her,
and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and
sends her out from his house, and
she leaves his house and goes and
becomes another man’s wife, ….
133
and if the latter husband turns
against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her
hand and sends her out of his
house, or if the latter husband dies
who took her to be his wife, then her
former husband who sent her away
is not allowed to take her again to be
134
his wife, since she has been defiled;
for that is an abomination before the
Lord.
The original text simply says, using
the subjunctive mood, “should this
and that and the other happen”, then
the first husband may not take her
again to be his wife.
The text (v. 2) does not say: “she
may go and be another man’s wife”..
135
(as if saying that she has divine permission to remarry). Such is an incorrect translation. The text says:
“should she go away and become
another man’s wife.”
Remember: when she marries the
second man, she then is defiled! (v.
4).
136
FELLOWSHIP / DIVERSE
APPLICATIONS
The civil-procedure-brethren, and
the race-to-repudiation brethren, are
making this issue one of fellowship.
They claim that the so-called
mental-divorce-brethren approve of
adultery by allowing the innocent
wife to remarry after repudiating her
husband who committed fornication
137
after divorcing her for any cause.
So, they can’t fellowship us who
differ with them on the application of
what Jesus taught in Mat. 19:9.
BUT, they have disagreements
among themselves, yet they fellowship each other!
Note some of these disagreements:
1. Some take the race-to-the-courthouse position (some among them
say, No)
138
2. Some require that the cause (fornication) be stated on the court document (some among them say, No)
3. Some allow a counter suit by the
innocent to reverse the effects of the
guilty’s legal victory (some among
them say, No)
4. If the innocent spouse got a divorce notice on Sat., but had intended the following Mon. to sue for divorce, she may remarry.
139
5. Some permit a divorced spouse
to remarry (be reconciled to) his former mate;some among them say, No
Brethren, we need not divide over
such matters. We agree that only
the innocent may repudiate the guilty fornicator-mate, and remarry, and
we can hold other considerations as
personal scruples without any division necessary. Let us be at peace!
140
WHERE DOES EACH PUT THE
FOCUS?
Jesus puts the focus on: The effect
that fornication, regardless of when
committed, has on the marriage
bond.
Some erring brethren put the
focus on: The effect that civil procedure, or simple repudiation, as exercised by an ungodly mate, has on
the marriage relationship.
141
Jesus said nothing about a timetable for the fornication; he simply
stated it as the cause.
He stated no provisos, involving
actions by an ungodly mate, or by
human courts; he simply stated fornication as the cause for repudiation
and remarriage on the part of the
innocent spouse.
142
Jesus didn’t say, “divorce is acceptable to God in the event of fornication provided that the innocent husband himself was not previously put
away by his ungodly wife who went
to a human court and got a legal divorce for just any cause.”
Some brethren have a different order: “no previous civil divorce obtained by an ungodly spouse against
143
the innocent mate, fornication by the
guilty spouse, civil divorce initiated
and completed by the innocent mate,
before the guilty spouse can do so
(= race to the courthouse), and then
remarriage by the innocent mate.
Jesus said nothing about a required absence of any prior courthouse
action before the fornication was
committed.
144
IRRELEVANT FORNICATION
Why is fornication entirely relevant
to the marriage bond before civil
procedure, but virtually irrelevant to
the marriage bond after civil procedure?
For those whose argument implies
such a difference, what Bible passage or principle can be cited to
demonstrate that difference?
145
After divorce proceedings (not for
fornication), are husband and wife
still bound by the law to each other?
(see Rom. 7:2-3)
If yes, does fornication affect the
marriage bond in any manner when
committed by the sundering party
after such a divorce (like it does
before the divorce)?
146
If not, what Bible passage or principle can be cited to show that it
doesn’t?
In what sense is the wife still
bound by the law to her husband
while he lives in fornication?
Must she cook for him? Wash his
clothes? Be a wife to him (engage in
sexual relations)?
What is it about the action of the
fornicator leaving his innocent …
147
mate that nullifies that innocent
mate’s right to disavow or repudiate
him?
After that divorce, is the wife obligated by the Scripture to sleep with
her husband if he is living in fornication? 1 Cor. 7:4,5.
If it is true that the put-away innocent person has no repudiation
rights, then what keeps the fornicator from requiring of his innocent …
148
wife on-going sexual relations?
If the divorced wife is obligated to
continue to fulfill those sexual relations to her fornicating mate, then
do the Scriptures approve of her
being one flesh with a fornicator?
(see 1 Cor. 6:15-18)
If not, we concede that the innocent put-away wife has permission
to renounce her marital obligations..
149
to her fornicating husband!
If one denies that the put-away innocent spouse has this repudiation
right, then upon what basis is she
loosed from her duty?
Will one argue that the fornicator’s
actions, or the fornication itself, automatically releases one from the
marriage bond? (Only God can do
that!)
150
If so, what prevents that innocent
mate (now not bound) from marrying
another with God’s approval?
Someone needs to explain the difference between the two “kinds” of
fornication: the one committed BEFORE the divorce and the one committed AFTER the divorce!
What about the man who “departs”
(chorizo) from, or “repudiates” …
151
(apoluo) his innocent mate in order
to commit fornication?
Is the innocent mate “hung?” No.
(See Mt. 19:9a)
Someone needs to explain exactly
WHY fornication after divorce (separation) is irrelevant to the marriage
bond, yet fornication committed
before a divorce is relevant.
152
Why is “post-civil-divorce fornication” the wrong kind of fornication to
qualify according to Mt. 5:32; 19:9?
A wife is separated from her husband (chorizo,1Cor.7:10 –same thing
as apoluo or aphiemi) for 6 months,
but could be reconciled (v.11).
If at that time she commits fornication, may her innocent husband repudiate her and marry another?
153
If her fornication is irrelevant to the
marriage bond, explain why.
Must a separated woman whose
“bound spouse” is a fornicator be in
subjection to him (Eph. 5:22)?
He’s left her and the children to
fend for themselves. If he tells her
she cannot work outside the home
to make a living, should she obey
him?
154
Should the children obey him
instead of their mother?
My opponent’s Mt.19:9: “Whosoever puts away his wife, except for fornication (that was not a “post-civildivorce fornication”), and marries
another, committeth adultery.”
Jesus predicated permission to put
away and to remarry on the cause of
fornication. My opponent predicates
155
it on whether or not the fornication
is pre-civil-divorce or post-civildivorce, or pre-putting-away or postputting-away. All is hinged on either
a race to the courthouse, or a race to
repudiation!
This Jesus did not do! Yet some
brethren are dividing the brotherhood over it. How sad!
156
Is the innocent put-away woman
bound to her husband after being
unscripturally put-away?
Still bound after he goes and
marries again?
Until she dies?
Does God free her from this bond
at any time in her life subsequent to
her being put away?
157
If so, how and when?
If not, being bound to him, is she
obligated to be a wife to him anytime
he requests it?
When does the bond cease, or
does it?
Scripture gives her the option of
repudiating him, and God would
then release her from that bond
(whether she remarries or not), or ..
158
of continuing bound to him with all
that the bond requires of her.
How will the opponent answer
these questions, since he does not
allow her to repudiate after she is
put away (for that would be a "second putting away")?
Is he willing to say that she is still
bound to her fornicating husband ..
159
in spite of what Jesus said about
fornication?
His proposition teaches that a putaway (repudiated) woman cannot
repudiate her husband even though
he is a fornicator; so, she cannot
“release” him (apoluo, Thayer, definition # 3).
Picture a husband, with a woman
or two on his arm, and his wife ..
160
singing to him, “Let me release you
and let you go.”
Then he replies: “You can’t release
me, Darling, because I released you
first.”
She is still bound (“deo”) to the
law of her husband. She is fully obligated to him as his wife by her marriage covenant (Mal. 2:14) with him.
161
Therefore, the Scriptures require
her to continue to be one flesh with
her fornicator-husband (1 Cor. 6:18,
“flee fornication") any time he wishes to sleep with her.
Is anyone willing to accept a doctrine that demands that consequence?
162
MARITAL STATUS
“God does tell us that the only
lawful divorce is that which is for the
cause of fornication. On this we agree. BUT, God specifies the marital
status needed to exercise such a
privilege (they must be married, not
put-away)”.
Where do you read that? Maybe in
the version that says: …
163
“Whosoever shall put away his
wife, and shall marry another,
committeth adultery, except he does
so for fornication (and provided that
he is not a put-away person, is still
living with his wife, and is the first
one to initiate the divorce).”
The opponent continues to put a
different scenario into Mat. 19:9.
164
Which passage states that God
“specifies the marital status needed
to exercise such a privilege (they
must be married, not put-away)”?
Not Mat.19:9a! Jesus was not
asked about a put-away mate, and
so did not address such a scenario.
He was asked about a married man
putting away his wife for any cause!
Stay with the context!
165
Jesus did not say, nor intimate:
“Now what I say goes only for a
married person, not for an unlawfully
put-away person”.
“God considers the marriage status and the marriage bond to be
different … Let’s not confuse what
God approves with what God allows.”
166
The brother knows that the marriage bond is still intact when an ungodly spouse unlawfully divorces
his innocent mate.
But, by “marital status” he means
that the two are married at the time
that one commits fornication. Which
two? In the scenario treated by
Jesus, as questioned by the Pharisees (Mt.19:3), obviously the man ..
167
was married at the time.
In a different scenario, one presented by certain brethren, the innocent spouse is not married at the
time of the adultery being committed against her (Mk. 10:11). But
Jesus says that “whosoever puts
away his spouse for fornication does
not commit adultery,” and that is …
168
precisely what the innocent wife (of
this second scenario) does! She
does what Jesus says she is permitted to do: put away a spouse guilty
of fornication, and remarry.
Jesus focused on the one cause
for doing so: fornication. Some brethren ignore that and focus on their
prefabricated “marital status.”
169
MARK 10:11,12
“Whosoever shall put away his wife,
and marry another, committeth adultery against her, and if she herself
shall put away her husband, and
marry another, she committeth adultery.” (ASV)
1. He put her away, married another, and is currently committing adultery against her! Why? Still bound!
170
2. She now has the cause (fornication) for repudiation and remarriage.
This Jesus declares in Mt. 19:9a (w/o
provisos!)
3. There is no sequence of events
in Mt. 19:9. Mk. 10:11,12 is a commentary on Mt. 19:9! Jesus is stating the consequence of his or her’s
putting away not for fornication:
adultery is committed!
171
MAL. 2:14 – Adultery “Against” Her
Some have argued that the adultery of Mark 10:11 is committed with
the new mate rather than against the
bound mate.
“Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because
Jehovah hath been witness between
thee and the wife of thy youth,
against whom thou hast dealt …
172
treacherously: yet is she thy com-panion, and the wife of thy
covenant” (Mal. 2:14).
In both Mark 10:11 & Malachi 2:14,
the unfaithfulness is AGAINST the
bound mate!
The “original wife” of the proposition, like the wife of Mk. 10:11, has
had adultery committed against her.
She now has the cause that Jesus ..
173
stipulated for repudiation and remarriage.
The wife of the proposition is found
in Mt. 19:9a. She is the innocent
spouse to whom Jesus gives the
right to put away and to remarry
because adultery was committed
against her.
Jesus stipulated the cause; she
has that cause!
174
Mt. 19:9a, man puts away his wife;
no cause of fornication in evidence.
Both still bound; neither free to remarry. He that marries this divorced
woman commits adultery,says Jesus
The wife of my opponent’s proposition has the cause of adultery that
has been committed against her (Mk.
10:11). Jesus permits such a one to
put away the fornicator-mate and to
remarry (Mt. 19:9a). Don’t confuse
the two different scenarios!
175
“But in Mk. 10:12 the NKJV says,
‘And if a woman divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery.’ It doesn’t say, ‘If she
herself’ (i.e., the original wife).
The Greek text does not say, “woman;” it employs the pronoun, “she”
and so other versions (ASV, NASV,
NIV, etc.) accurately state the matter. Obviously she is a woman, but
the text says, “she” (the man’s wife).
176
“Mental divorce”, a put-away woman simply in her mind thinks: “I
divorce you”.
A prejudicial term, and misrepresentation of me and many other brethren! We reject: “simply thinks”!
Joseph was minded to put Mary
away (Mt.1:19). Thought precedes
action. Is the mind involved in civil
divorce? If so,is it “mental divorce”?
177
Should we refer to “non-mental
brethren”? Is their divorce (civil procedure) totally “mindless”?
They inject civil procedure into
“put away”, and then claim that the
put-away can’t put away. But, yes he
can! Both can repudiate!
What they mean is: the civilly divorced can’t civilly divorce.
That’s right. A civilly divorced …
178
person, as well as the one who filed
for civil divorce, are now registered
by the law as two divorced persons,
both of them!
One can’t then turn around and
ask for a second registering. That
would be meaningless.
But biblical “putting away” IS NOT
civil procedure! So, a put-away person can also do the same thing: put
away!
179
Our civil-procedure-brethren act
as though when a spouse civilly
divorces his mate that the mate is
the only one who is divorced!
But, BOTH are now civilly divorced!
Now, if an innocent spouse civilly
divorces his mate for fornication,
may he remarry? Yes, we all say.
But wait, since he got a divorce, he
is now a divorced person, and “a …
180
divorced person may not remarry,”
we are told by the civil-procedurebrethren, and others.
Let no one say that that person is
not a divorced person; the law says
that both of them are!
Repudiation = reject, renounce, refuse, decline, disavow. It is action
taken, and not mere thought process (the so-called “mental divorce”)
181
Note how the the civil-procedure
brethren and others depict us: “If
anyone divorces his wife and marries another, he commits adultery;
and then, his wife can mentally divorce (repudiate) her former husband, who is in fact, still her husband, and marry another” Lk. 16:18,
NMDV (New Mental Divorce Version)
182
The person doesn’t live who claims
that Lk.16:18 reads like that! What’s
the name of the brother who believes that statement? I certainly
don’t believe it!
Repudiate (put away, dismiss) is
not merely mental, a thought! It is
action! But Jesus did not specify
what action or words comprise the
act of repudiation. He specified the
act!
183
There’s action in Thayer’s definitions of apoluo: to dismiss from the
house, sever by loosening, repudiate, to set free.
Such is not merely thought, but
action!
But, it is not civil action!
To the civil procedure brother, if
one doesn’t go through legal action
he doesn’t repudiate or put away. All
he sees is civil procedure!
184
That is why he chooses to express
himself, saying: “mental divorce”, to
suggest a specific meaning of the
English word, “divorce”, which is
the legal one, that of courthouse action! He means “legal registration of
the act”, and not simply separation,
the basic meaning of “divorce.”
The putting away, or repudiation,
occurs before the civil procedure.
185
The spouse that puts away, or repudiates, his mate looses him, or
severs him, from acceptance in marriage. This is the meaning of Apoluo.
He explicitly declares to the mate
that he no longer wills to live in marriage with the mate. He releases him;
he declares him repudiated. That’s
not merely mental / thought process;
that’s action!
186
Civil procedure is a process that
follows this and that often takes
much time to complete. In the meantime, the two spouses are separated
(unmarried--not living together).
187
Order: Matt. 19:9 -- Marriage,
divorce for fornication, may remarry,
versus
Marriage, divorce, fornication, 2nd
(post-civil-divorce) divorce, when
fornication is committed AFTER the
fact of divorcement = mental divorce
by the one divorced, may remarry.
The above are contrived “orders”.
Let me express them. They are …
188
saying that: Marriage, fornication,
while still married the innocent is
first to initiate and finalize the civil
procedure of divorce for fornication,
and then may remarry,
versus
Jesus’ permission: innocent spouse
repudiates the fornicating spouse,
and remarries.
189
There is validity in the “order argument”, if it is rightly and fairly stated,
to represent truly the issue at hand.
One bases his contrived “order” argument on his injection of a different
scenario into the one that Jesus
treated; thus, “two” different orders!
Actually, the innocent husband,
and the innocent wife, do the same
thing: They are both bound to each ..
190
other; one fornicates, the other
repudiates, and may remarry. Same
order!
---------------------------------------------------True order argument:
Truth: B + B = S Baptist: B = S + B
(Same elements, only moved)
Truth: M - F - Innocent P A - Remarry
Error: M - Guilty P A - F - “2nd P-A” Remarry. (Different elements; they
have been changed) So, not an issue
of order, but of changed scenario!
191
Jesus didn’t say, “divorce is acceptable to God in the event of fornication provided that the innocent husband himself was not previously put
away by his ungodly wife who went
to a human court and got a legal divorce for just any cause.”
Some brethren have a different order: no previous civil divorce obtained by an ungodly spouse against …
192
the innocent mate, fornication by the
guilty spouse, civil divorce initiated
and completed by the innocent mate,
before the guilty spouse can do so
(= race to the courthouse), and then
remarriage by the innocent mate.
Jesus said nothing about a required absence of any prior courthouse
action before the fornication was
committed.
193
In order to get a different order of
events, my opponent throws together two different scenarios: the one
presented to Jesus by the Pharisees
(Mt. 19:3), and the one of the present-day controversy raised by the
civil-procedure-brethren, and the
race-to-repudiation brethren. This is
the only way that they can get their
so-called “second putting away.”
194
I DENY THE PROPOSITION
“The Bible teaches that if a man puts away
his scriptural wife for a reason other than
fornication, and then commits fornication, the
original wife may not remarry.”
BECAUSE:
1. Jesus never said the above. What
he said was: If a man puts away his
wife for a reason other than fornication, whoever marries that wife commits adultery.
195
2. Jesus was not asked about the
scenario of the proposition. Fornication was no part of the question put
to Jesus by the Pharisees (Mt. 19:3).
He was not asked if it is lawful for a
wife to remarry who has been put away by her mate who, after the putting-away, committed fornication!
3. What Jesus said in Mt.19:9a gives
the innocent one, against whom …
196
adultery has been committed (Mk.
10:11), the right to repudiate for fornication and to remarry. The proposition denies this. So I deny the proposition!
4. Jesus put no time-limit on when
the fornication has to be committed.
Therefore it matters not when it is
committed—before or after anything!
Jesus was asked about the cause,
and that is what he addressed.
197
5. To go beyond what Jesus said,
in the context in which he said it, is
to misrepresent the teaching of
Jesus and to bind human legislation.
6. It makes the divine permission to
hinge upon what an ungodly spouse
does. It lets what an ungodly person does cancel what God permits!
7. It deprives the innocent spouse
the right to do what Jesus gave him..
198
the right to do.
8. It confuses the scenario that
Jesus treated with an entirely different one which he did not treat.
9. It attributes to the Bible a manmade scruple. Where in the Bible
can one read that, because a mate
did an ungodly act (putting away for
just any cause), the innocent spouse
may not do what God gave him the
right to do?
199
10. The Lord did not say that an innocent mate may put away a fornicating mate unless the fornicator first
unscripturally had put the mate away
and then committed fornication.
11. The proposition denies what
Jesus teaches in Mk. 10:11. When
the man commits fornication, he
does it “against” his “original wife.”
200
12. The order of occurrence in Mt.
19:9a is still the same for the woman
in the proposition above--scriptural
marriage, mate commits fornication,
she puts him away for it.
13. The husband's actions do not
negate the marriage covenant. By
putting away his scriptural wife without the cause of fornication, the man
breaks only the physical marriage ..
201
relationship. He remains bound to
his wife. Mt. 19:9a teaches that an
innocent spouse may put away his
bound mate on the grounds of fornication and marry another.
14. Fornication is still "against" a
bound mate even if that fornication
is committed after one leaves the
bound mate (Mk. 10:11).
15. Fornication is not rendered
irrelevant just because it is …
202
committed after leaving the innocent
mate.
16. The expression, "whoever marries a divorced woman commits
adultery" is no more of an absolute
statement than is the expression,
"whoever puts away his wife and
marries another commits adultery"
(Lk. 16:18a). The presence of
fornication alters the consequences
203
of the one just as it does the other.
17. The "put-away" woman of Mt.
19:9 is the victim of a particular circumstance and scenario presented
to Jesus in Mt. 19:3. No cause of
fornication is in evidence. She’s still
bound; no one may marry her.
18. Being "put-away" is not a classification; it is the consequence of
another person's actions. Jesus ..
204
nowhere cancelled the repudiation
rights of the “put-away woman” of
his remarks.
19. No one may marry the "putaway" woman of Mt. 19:9, not on the
basis of her marital "status," but on
the basis of the absence of cause of
fornication on the part of her husband upon putting her away.
205
20. Absolutely nothing in Mt., Mk.
and Lk. is directed to what a putaway woman (wife) may or may not
do (as does the proposition!). Jesus
directs his remarks to the consequences of what a husband might
do, and then to what another man
might do. Let’s stay with the text!
21. The proposition denies that Mt.
19:9a and Mk. 10:11 are parallel …
206
even though these two texts deal
with the same occasion, same
people, same question asked, and
answered, same reference to what
Moses did, same teaching that fornication is against the innocent party,
and therefore, same clear implication that the innocent party is permitted to repudiate the guilty party
and to remarry.
207
22. Mt. 19:9 is Matthew’s account of
Jesus’ teaching implying the put-ting
away of a wife who fornicates before
any divorce has occurred, and Mk.
10:11 is Mark’s account of Jesus’
teaching that after the unlaw-ful
divorce, if the husband remarries, he
is committing adultery against his
wife.
These statements contain the same
teaching because whenever …
208
fornication is committed, it is
against the innocent spouse and
that one is free to remarry.
Mt. 19:9 and Mk. 10:11 are parallel
and show the falsity of the proposition. When the cause of fornication is in evidence, the spouse has
the divine right to repudiate the
guilty mate and to remarry.
Jesus put no provisos to it!
209
23. If the proposition is the truth,
then the innocent wife of Mk. 10:11 is
still bound by law to her husband
while he lives (Rom. 7:2,3), even
though he continues to commit adultery against her!
Being bound to him means that
she must still be a wife to him whenever he chooses (cook for him, sleep
with him, bear and rear his …
210
children) even though he is living in
fornication (Col. 3:5,7).
The word “bound” of Rom. 7:2,3; 1
Cor. 7:27,39 can have no other
meaning.
211
24. It assumes that God gave the
putting-away right to the person who
acted first, not necessarily to the
one whose mate commits fornication
25. It assumes that there is only one
putting away allowed per marriage
contract, but the right is given to an
innocent spouse, not to a contract.
26. It assumes that only one person,
per marriage, may put away his
mate, but either spouse may put ...
212
away, and God gives the right only
to the innocent spouse.
27. It assumes that God refuses to
allow and approve a putting-away,
on the basis that it takes place after
a previous unapproved puttingaway.
28. It assumes that once a puttingaway has occurred (in a given case),
there exists no other right to put away. Who’s permitting, God or man?
213
My opponent puts the control in
the hands of the ungodly; Jesus
puts the control in the hands of the
innocent spouse!
The way that my opponent attempts
to defend his proposition is to take
what Jesus did say, add to it his own
provisos taken from a different scenario, and then conclude what his
proposition says.
214
In Mt. 19:9 Jesus did not say,
“Whosoever shall put away his wife,
except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and
then afterward he that comes along
and marrieth her when she is put
away committeth adultery.”
Mt. 19:9 states a principle, not a
sequence of events, as Mk. 10:11,12
plainly shows.
215
#1- A man puts away his wife for any
cause except fornication. No one
may marry the put-away wife, nor
may he remarry. No cause of
fornication here! Agreed?
#2- A man puts away his wife for
fornication. He may remarry. The
cause of fornication here! Agreed?
So we have to agree that the putaway wife of case #1 is not the wife ..
216
of case #2. Case #1, no fornicator;
Case #2, a fornicator.
Where fornication is involved, the
innocent husband or wife (as in the
proposition) is divinely permitted to
put away the fornicator-mate, and to
remarry. This is the teaching of the
statement in Mt. 19:9a, and we are
agreed.
Let’s leave it there and have no
division!
217
Husband
1. Puts away his wife for
any cause
Wife
2. She, not consenting to it, is
now a put-away woman
(Mk.5:32; Matt.19:9; Lk.16:18)
No fornication, neither can remarry, still bound to each other
3. He remarries, commits
adultery against his wife to
whom he is still bound
(Mk.10:11)
4. She is still his wife, innocent of
fornication
5. She now has the cause,
fornication, for repudiation
(Matt.19:9)
6. She being innocent repudiates
him, God releases her from the
bond
Man no longer her husband, the woman no longer his wife
7. He had no cause, so, no right
to remarry
8. She has a right to remarry
218
HUSBAND
------WIFE
Puts away/any cause She put-away
No forn.–still bound–neither remarry
Remarries (Mk.10:11) She innocent
Adultery
She now has “cause”
against her
She repudiates him
God releases her from the bond
He no longer husband---she not wife
He had no cause, so She has right
no remarriage
to remarry
219
The proposition is my brother’s
opinion, to which he is welcome. But
brethren need to abandon the bandwagon of disfellowship, and quit
talking about dividing the church
over an opinion.
Let all denounce the absurd insistence of some on pushing this issue
to the dividing of the church. With so
much against the proposition, at
best it can be only an opinion.
220
Those pushing to divide the church
over this can’t agree among themselves. Some say that if the fornicating husband beats his wife to the
court house, it’s too bad, she has
had it and don’t whine about it.
Or some say, No, she can countersue. Others say that she doesn’t
have to do even that, just let it be
known, etc.
221
They are arguing among themselves about how to justify this putaway woman remarrying, and yet
they want to divide the church over
it. They themselves give clear proof
of the fact that at best they are dealing with opinion!
222
“Put-Away” or “Putting-Away”
What’s The Difference?
Some will cite Mt. 5:32; 19:9 and
Lk. 16:18, as proof that a person is
forbidden remarriage on the mere
basis of his being a “put-away”
person.
They argue that the innocent person’s right to marry another depends upon two things:
…
223
(1) His mate’s fornication and (2) His
own success in “divorcing” that fornicating mate before the fornicator
“divorces” him.
Conspicuously absent from their
argument is any consideration at all
of the marital rights of the puttingaway party!
Mt. 19:9; Mk. 10:11,12 and Lk. 16:18
also prohibit the putting-away party
from marrying another!
224
Two of the passages that prohibit
remarriage for the “put-away” person also prohibit remarriage for the
putting-away person!
If Mt. 19:9, and Lk. 16:18 prohibit
remarriage for the put-away party on
the mere basis that he is the “putaway” party, then they also prohibit
remarriage for the putting-away
party on the mere …
225
basis that he is the “putting-away”
party!
But it is the mate’s FORNICATION
that establishes the right of remarriage for the innocent party – not the
speed with which either one acts in
repudiation or in legal divorce!
226
In order to get a different order of
events, my opponent throws together two different scenarios: the one
presented to Jesus by the Pharisees
(Mt. 19:3), and the one of the present-day controversy raised by the
civil-procedure-brethren, and the
race-to-repudiation brethren. This is
the only way that they can get their
so-called “second putting away.”
227
“There are not two puttings-away
in Matt. 19:9, but only one.”
Of course not, because Christ is
not talking about two different scenarios!
There is only one putting-away
(approved by God): that of the innocent one’s putting away the guilty!
Both the man and the woman are
given that prerogative by Christ. …
228
No human court, nor the action of
an ungodly spouse, may nullify a
God-given prerogative or right.
229
QUESTIONS FOR THE OPPONENT:
1. May the guilty party and the innocent one be reconciled after a civil
divorce for fornication? Some say,
Yes (reconciliation is always open).
Some say, No (marriage to a putaway woman means adultery). But,
“whosoever” (Mt. 5:32b) is a third
person in the picture.
230
2. If the innocent, civilly put-away,
mate dies before the fornicating
spouse marries again, may he
remarry? (Remember, the court divorced HIM also! It divorced BOTH
spouses).
3. Is it imperative for the innocent to
counter-sue when the guilty initiates
the suit?
(They differ on their
answers!)
231
Should one group (of the civil-procedure-brethren) disfellowship another group because of such differences of judgment between them?
4. May a homosexual, who has
been legally married to another man,
but was divorced by him, then marry
a woman?
232
“When a repentant homosexual
‘puts-away’ his male spouse, he is
free to lawfully marry a woman because he is not bound to anyone”.
But, he now has a divorced man
remarrying! His absolute law forbids
this!
5. May a legally married person,
who divorced because he had no
God-given right to the other, now
remarry?
233
If my opponent says, Yes, he now
has a divorced person remarrying!
His absolute law forbids this!
6. If a spouse for any reason divorces his mate, and then the
spouse dies, is the innocent, divorced mate free to remarry?
“Romans 7:2,3 clearly teaches that
the marriage bond is broken at the
death of the spouse. The reason …
234
remarriage is lawful is that there is
no marriage or bond where one
spouse has passed away. This
avoids the issue where both
spouses are ALIVE”.
But, he now has a divorced person
remarrying! His absolute law forbids
this!
Is he “avoiding” his own issue of
the prohibition against all divorced
people remarrying?
235
May he make an exception to his
law, but I am held to it?
If an innocent spouse may not
repudiate and remarry simply because he was unscripturally put
away, and divorced by civil law, and
therefore is “a divorced person”,
does not his same law apply to his
person divorced by civil law?
Is his law absolute if it has exceptions?
236
8. Is one a “(civilly) divorced person” just because he was not the
one in the marriage to initiate the
civil divorce proceedings?
Only one of the two spouses in a
marriage, of course, initiates the civil
divorce proceedings, but the effect
of the proceedings is that finally
both parties are then divorced persons, and not only the one who …
237
did not initiate the proceedings!
Both become “(civilly) divorced
persons”.
Therefore, when talking about a
“divorced person”, both spouses are
included, regardless of which one
initiated the civil divorce proceedings!
If a man civilly divorces his wife,
she becomes a "divorced woman“ ..
238
But, by the same procedure he becomes a divorced man!
Does not the law now register them
as divorced persons (“single”)?
Does the law distinguish between
the marital status of the two? Is one
divorced but the other is not, or is
something different? So, according
to the civil-procedure doctrine, neither can remarry because both are
divorced persons!
239
If Lk. 16:18 applies to her, it equally applies to him: both are divorced!
Now, even if he divorced her for fornication, he cannot remarry because
he is now a “divorced person”!
Or, if when he divorced her, only
she became a divorced person? If
so, what is his marital status? On
his income-tax report, for “marital
status”, will he check a different box
than she?
240
RACE TO THE COURTHOUSE
Note the steps:
1. “Put away” is made to mean civil
procedure, commonly called
“divorce”.
2. The husband fornicates. The wife
tries to get him to repent so that she
can forgive him, and save the marriage. This occupies time.
241
3. He, wanting to be free to marry
another woman, files for divorce in
the court.
Once the divorce is granted (the
judge’s gavel comes down!), he has
“put her away.” As such, she is a
“divorced’’ woman and can’t ever remarry (Lk. 16:18 is cited).
4. Had she forgotten about saving
him and the marriage (usually involving children), she might have …
242
beat him to the courthouse and filed
first! (Some say, at least countersue).
5. The race is determined by the
judge’s gavel! To the one to whom
the suit was first granted!
6. She has a right to remarry, only if
a human judge rules in her favor
first. He is the determinant in the
case.
243
7. Her God-given right is subject to
an unbeliever’s decision, believe it
who can!
Human legal steps are made crucial
and definitive in overruling God’s
authority to give the right of remarriage to the innocent spouse.
The disagreement concerns whether or not biblical putting-away is
synonymous with civil divorce in
one’s respective society.
244
In no Greek-English lexicon do the
three Greek words translated put
away (dismiss, repudiate), leave,
depart, mean civil procedure in legal
divorce!
What Jesus meant by “put away”
applies to all time and to all cultures.
There may be, in a given society,
other things to do in legal action, but
human laws by godless legislatures..
245
do not infringe upon God-given
liberties.
Jesus said, put away (repudiate).
Civil jurisprudence doesn’t define
that act.
The issue is not over “loosing
where God has not loosed” (as
claimed by the opponent) but over
“binding (civil procedure, etc.) where
God has not bound”. Mt.16:19;18:18.
246
God does not grant putting-away
rights to fornicators. He does grant
putting-away rights to innocent people whose mates have committed
fornication. Furthermore, the innocent person is the one who makes
the decision of putting away. The
fornicator's race to the judge has no
impact upon that innocent person's
decision.
247
RACE TO REPUDIATION
In the present controversy over the
marital rights of the innocent putaway party, the question has been
raised about a “second puttingaway.”
Some are disturbed by the notion
that a wrongly put-away, innocent,
person may rightly put away his
fornicating mate.
248
They judge this as wrong on the basis that it allows a "second" puttingaway.
Actually, two married people may
repudiate each other. Nothing in
Scripture nullifies one's ability to repudiate a mate merely upon the
basis that he was already repudiated. There is no "race-to-repudiation" that one must fear "losing!"
249
One's ability to repudiate a mate is
not conditioned upon whether or not
he was "beaten to" repudiation.
Of course, in cases where two
people do repudiate each other, they
cannot both be right in their actions.
At least one of them is wrong.
In cases where no fornication has
been committed, and both parties
consent to the sundering of the …
250
marriage, neither party has the right
to marry another.
Using biblical language, one can
say there are as many "puttingsaway" as there are people doing that
putting away! Hence, if a thousand
people repudiated their mates for a
thousand different reasons, whether
those reasons were approved by
God or not, there would be a ….
251
thousand puttings-away.
Jesus is not concerned about how
many repudiations there might be, or
who was the first to repudiate his
mate. He is concerned about the reason why a person repudiates his
mate! Sadly, this concern is, for the
most part, ignored by those who
constantly emphasize the puttingaway procedure.
252
Jesus extended a putting-away
privilege to an innocent person
whose mate has committed fornication against him (Mk. 10:11)
This God-given privilege is extended to the innocent on the basis of
his own innocence, and his mate's
sexual immorality. It is not extended
on the basis of whether or not the innocent party acts quickly enough to
beat the guilty to repudiation.
253
The guilty party can repudiate his
innocent mate until he is blue in the
face, even beating the innocent party
to the courthouse. He may have
been the first to initiate the civil procedure, and he may even have won
the civil divorce case.
However, none of this makes any
difference at all. The innocent party
is the one who possesses the right
to act.
254
Though the fornicating mate may
have already broken his marital
vows and commitments to his innocent mate, and though he may have
already walked out on that innocent
mate, God has given the right of approved repudiation to that innocent
party.
255
“REFUTATIONS” BY THE OPPONENT
1. “By saying that this issue is not
addressed in the Bible, proponents
of the “mental divorce” position
seek to neutralize the teachings of
Christ, especially in Lk. 16:18.”
The scenario of a wife who was unscripturally divorced by civil procedure, and who then repudiated her
husband because he, after the divorce, remarried or committed ..
256
fornication, and who herself then remarries, is not the scenario that
Jesus deals with in Mt. 19.
Lk. 16:18 does not touch this
scenario.
If she is put away “for any cause”,
her innocence is implied! She’s not
guilty of fornication!
If she is guilty of fornication, his
innocence is implied in the divine
257
permission to put her away and
remarry.
This scenario is covered by the
principle set forth in the scenario of
Mt. 19; that is, that the innocent
spouse, when the mate commits fornication, has the right to repudiate
and remarry.
I am not neutralizing anything! I
am applying to this different scenario the principle set forth by …
258
Jesus in Mt. 19.
But my opponent is injecting into
the scenario of Mt. 19 (the one that
Jesus deals with, where no cause of
fornication is involved) an entirely
different scenario (where fornication
has been committed by a spouse).
259
REPUDIATION OCCURS BEFORE
CIVIL DIVORCE
The putting away, or repudiation,
occurs before the civil procedure.
The spouse that puts away, or repudiates, his mate looses him, or
severs him, from acceptance in marriage. This is the meaning of Apoluo.
He explicitly declares to the mate
that he no longer wills to live in marriage with him. He releases him; …
260
he declares him repudiated.
Civil procedure is a process that
follows this and which often takes
much time to complete. In the meantime, the two spouses are separated
(unmarried--not living together).
261
ROMANS 13
“Roman 13 – Obeying civil law is
an integral part of the right to divorce and remarry”.
Love thy neighbor as thyself (Rom.
13:9). Honor all men, honor the king
(1 Pet. 2:17). Fathers, provoke not
your children to wrath (Eph. 6:4).
But, what do these commandments have to do with the innocent’s
…
262
right to put away a spouse and
remarry?
All of God’s commandments are to
be obeyed, but they are not determinants of his law on marriage, putting
away, and remarriage!
"God's will is for us to obey 'the
higher powers' even though they
may nullify our God-given 'liberties‘..
In truth, Jesus indirectly 'specified’ ..
263
the divorce 'procedure,' for every
given culture, by endowing its rulers
with the power to decide what constitutes that procedure.”
Proof, please! This is only an
“ipse dixit” ( = he himself says it).
Jesus did not give a procedure for
APOLUO! and human laws do not
supercede God’s, not even in matters of permission.
264
“Rom. 13:1, ‘Let every soul be in
subjection to the higher powers’. If
the law of the land demands legal
divorce proceedings, they must be
recognized and followed”.
What the law demands, for purposes of legitimate claims, is registration of marriages and divorces,
but not for purposes of living together or cessation of living together. It
is not unlawful to “shack up” nor to
265
“split”. Homosexuality now is lawful!
“Governments can nullify Godgiven liberties, but not God-given
commands”.
Proof, please? Human courts cannot over-ride anything that God has
willed! God did not give to human
governments the role of determining
marital rights. Furthermore, human
governments don’t make that claim.
266
Only our erring brethren’s law is
broken when the innocent put-away
spouse of the proposition repudiates
the fornicating mate and remarries.
“Marriage is a right, not a command. If a government forbids marriage, the Christian must obey the
government”.
If so, then the Christian disobeys
God and obeys a doctrine of demons! 1 Tim. 4:1-3.
267
God’s law for avoiding fornication is
marriage (1 Cor. 7:2), which is to be
had in honor among all (Heb. 13:4).
Many civil governments do not
demand that to live together a marriage license must be obtained.
(Consider: common-law marriage).
Their role is simply that of registering the marriage for purposes of determining legally just who are …
268
are married (for purposes of claims,
benefits, legitimacy of children, etc.)
It is admitted by all brethren that
there can be places and times where
marriage and divorce take place
without any civil procedure!
So, civil procedure does not inhere
in marrying, or putting away, dismissal, repudiation!
269
Civil law does not say that a putaway woman may not remarry! Civil
law doesn't care if she remarries,
whom she might remarry, why she
might remarry, nor even if she might
not remarry at all! Civil law is not
annulling, nor negating, divine rights
or permissions.
Civil law doesn't even know what
divine permission (per Mt. 19:9) …
270
is given to an innocent spouse
whose mate commits fornication!
How can civil law annul something
of which it has no knowledge, and
even cares less?
The ones who are trying to annul a
divine right are certain brethren,
who are saying that because of what
civil law did (in granting the ungodly
husband an unscriptural divorce)
she may not remarry (if adultery…
271
is committed against her).
For authority in their taking away
this divine right, they appeal to Lk.
16:18b, etc., and take a statement
out of context in which no cause for
fornication is in evidence, a context
in which neither spouse has a right
to remarry.
Repeatedly they respond: "Whoever marries a put-away woman
commits adultery".
272
So, they are “putting the monkey
on the back” of civil law, but in reality THEY are the ones annulling
divine permission. They are doing it
by misusing Lk. 16:18b, etc.
273
ROMANS 14
Treats of matters of indifference,
solely of scruples, opinions, personal judgments!
Bro. Ed Harrell, and others, advocate that matters of considerable
moral and doctrinal import can be
fitted into Rom. 14.
That is not so! The “civil-procedure” brethren also know that it is
not so.
274
But, since they accuse the socalled “mental divorce” brethren of
condoning adultery (by allowing a
certain innocent, put-away woman to
put away a fornicating spouse and
remarry, which thing to them means
committing adultery), they accuse
their brethren of taking the “unity in
diversity” position that Bro. Ed
Harrell takes.
275
They accuse them of putting adultery into Rom. 14 and of fellowshipping those who so commit adultery.
They claim that this they cannot do!
But, they commit the same error as
the non-meat-eater of Rom. 14, that
Paul condemned for judging.
Consider the parallel:
276
The non-meat eater: “To me to eat
that meat (dedicated to an idol) is
idolatry. So, any brother who eats
that meat is an idolater and I will
condemn him and not fellowship
him!”
The civil-procedure brother: “To
me, for that civilly, put-away woman
to “mentally divorce” and remarry, is
adultery. So, any brother who …
277
condones such is condoning adultery, and I will condemn him and not
fellowship him!”
Meat is meat and may be eaten (1
Tim. 4:3, forbidding to marry, [and
commanding] to abstain from meats,
which God created to be received
with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth).
Paul calls “good” and “clean” …
278
(Rom. 14:16,20) the eating of such
meat offered to idols, because meat
is meat and is not eaten “as of a
thing sacrificed to an idol” (1 Cor.
8:7). So the non-meat eater was
condemning another according to
his own conscience.
The civil-procedure brother cannot
conscientiously remarry if he has
been civilly divorced by his spouse ..
279
for just any cause.
So, he judges (condemns) by his
own conscience the so-called mental-divorce brother who condones
the right of the innocent, put-away
wife, who has the cause of fornication, to repudiate and remarry.
Jesus gave the right of remarriage
to the spouse who, being innocent
of fornication, repudiates the …
280
fornicating mate and then remarries.
To condone what Jesus permits is
not adultery!
The civil-divorce brethren add to
what Jesus permits and then accuse
of adultery those who do not submit
to their additions.
Rom.14, that treats of matters of
indifference, does not condemn the
non-meat eater (v. 6), and neither do
the so-called mental-divorce …
281
brethren condemn the civil-procedure brethren who refuse to remarry
if civilly divorced for any cause.
Rom. 14 condemns the brother
who, based on his own conscience,
condemns the brother who practices
what God permits.
The civil-procedure brethren,
based on their own conscience, condemn the brother who practices
what God permits.
282
By unjustly condemning their conservative brethren, they become divisive in their labors, and hinder the
joint-fight that all conservative brethren have been making against
those who advocate the right of the
fornicator to remarry.
The “civil procedure” brethren
agree that the innocent spouse may
repudiate and remarry, but they …
283
insist on adding to that their own
conditions of “race to the court
house, race to repudiation, civil procedure, marital status,” etc.
284
TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS
1.The woman of Mt.19:9b; Lk.16:18b
= a woman dismissed for any cause
(no cause of fornication here) and
whom another has married.
2. The woman who is dismissed for
any cause, has not remarried, but
whose husband has now committed
fornication; she then dismisses her
husband for fornication, and marries
again.
285
The civil-procedure brethren switch
scenarios! They put the woman of
the second scenario into the first
scenario. They apply in the absolute
to the second scenario a phrase
which is stated in the first scenario.
But, in the second one fornication is
involved! Their argument is flawed!
The same brethren take Lk.16:18b
in the absolute. Consider making ..
286
absolutes out of these texts (by taking them out of context, and then
proclaiming: “That’s what it says!”):
Rom. 14:14,20, nothing is unclean
of itself, all things indeed are clean.
Are homosexuality and bank robbing
clean?
1 Cor. 6:12, All things are lawful for
me. Are stealing, lying and fornication lawful?
287
2 Cor. 9:13, the liberality of [your]
contribution unto them and unto all.
Is church benevolence for saints and
non-saints alike?
Lk. 16:18b, whoever marries her
that is divorced (every woman who
is put away under any/all circumstances? the put-away woman
whose husband dies? The unmarried / “divorced” woman of 1 Cor.
7:11 who wants to be reconciled to ..
288
her husband?)
Keep the “put-away woman” of the
controversy in context!
If Lk. 16:18b is to be taken in the
absolute, then 16:18a must also be
taken thusly:
289
16:18b, “whoever marries her who
is divorced” (NKJ). Whoever
marries a divorced woman, and this
is absolutely so!
16:18a, “Whoever divorces his wife
and marries another commits adultery” (NKJ). So, if a man has a fornicating wife, he divorces her (for fornication) and marries another, he
then commits adultery. Right? …
290
Wrong!
Well, what happened to
the “absolute”?
(Those few brethren, who claim
that there is no authority for any remarriage, cite Lk. 16:18a To them
the passage is absolute! – no remarriage under any circumstance!
At least they are consistent, but my
race-to-repudiation-brethren aren’t!)
291
SCRIPTURES
Mat. 5:32, but I say unto you, that
every one that putteth away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication,
maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is
put away committeth adultery.
Putting her away for any cause except fornication exposes her to remarriage, which would be …
292
committing adultery for her and the
second husband (since she is still
bound to the first husband). God did
not loose her.
What if a husband puts away his
wife for any cause, and she does not
go and marry another man. Is she
an adulteress? No.
Did he make her an adulteress by
simply putting her away? No
293
If she never marries again, is she
made an adulteress anyway? No
A divorce, legal or otherwise, does
not per se change the marriage bond
of the couple in God’s sight, because only God can loose an innocent spouse from a fornicating mate.
Admittedly they are not now married, in the basic sense of “enter into
an intimate union”.
294
Mat. 19:3-9, And there came unto
him Pharisees, trying him, and saying, Is it lawful [for a man] to put
away his wife for every cause? 4
And he answered and said, Have ye
not read, that he who made [them]
from the beginning made them male
and female, 5 and said, For this
cause shall a man leave his father ..
295
and mother, and shall cleave to his
wife; and the two shall become one
flesh? 6 So that they are no more
two, but one flesh. What therefore
God hath joined together, let not
man put asunder. 7 They say unto
him, Why then did Moses command
to give a bill of divorcement, and to
put [her] away? 8 He saith unto
them, Moses for your hardness of ..
296
heart suffered you to put away your
wives: but from the beginning it hath
not been so. 9 And I say unto you,
Whosoever shall put away his wife,
except for fornication, and shall
marry another, committeth adultery:
and he that marrieth her when she is
put away committeth adultery.
Note the context: put away for
every cause! No fornication here.
297
Stay with the context!
Jesus is here answering the Pharisees’ question. His answer: No!
The husband puts away, repudiates, his wife for any cause. Two
points made:
1. He then marries another woman =
he commits adultery (being still
bound to his wife).
2. And, if he puts her away and “he”
(whatever other man) marries her, …
298
this second man commits adultery
(because she is still bound to her
husband who put her away, and not
because she is a put-away person).
One exception: for the cause of
fornication.
In the case of fornication having
been committed, the innocent
spouse does not commit adultery
299
if he or she puts away the guilty one
and then marries another.
The innocent one has a right to remarriage – God looses the innocent
person from the bond/vows.
This divine permission is not nullified by any decree of human legislation.
Christ stays with the issue: the
cause! Many brethren inject
procedure (civil, at that!).
300
Their additional cause: “provided
one has not been put-away.”
Mathew 19 considers what is
"lawful" and what is the "cause" for
which one may put away a mate and
remarry.
Jesus' answer to the question in v.
3, NO. My answer to question in v.
3, NO.
Sole "Cause" that I teach for one to
divorce, remarry: “for fornication.”
301
Let anyone show any other provisos in this passage that Jesus
stipulated!
The Pharisees did NOT ask: Is it
lawful for a wife to remarry after she
has been put away by her husband
for just any cause, and who himself
afterwards remarries?
The context deals with the lawfulness of a spouse’s putting away
for every cause.
302
Jesus teaches that such is not lawful. What is lawful is that only if
fornication occurs the innocent
spouse may repudiate the guilty one
and remarry, because God will loose
the innocent one from his marriage
vows and commitments.
Jesus put no provisos to this
permission!
303
Mark 10:11,12, And he saith unto them,
Whosoever shall put away his wife, and
marry another, committeth adultery
against her: 12 and if she herself shall
put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery.
Same context (parallel passage) as
Mt. 19.
The adultery committed is against
the put-away wife (and with the second woman).
304
Jesus authorizes the wife also to
put away. (Under Moses the woman
could not put away)
Mt. 19 and Mk. 10 are commentaries on each other. Each adds several details.
Mt. 19:9 does not represent “sequential action” (i.e., a man puts
away his wife for any cause except
fornication, marries again, …
305
committing adultery, then afterwards she marries and commits
adultery).
Mk. 10:11,12 makes this clear: each
spouse, upon putting away (as questioned by the Pharisees) and remarrying, commits adultery.
If HE does it … and if SHE does it,
both commit adultery! So, let neither spouse put away for just any
cause.
306
Luke 16:18, Every one that putteth
away his wife, and marrieth another,
committeth adultery: and he that
marrieth one that is put away from a
husband committeth adultery.
This is inserted here as an illustration of the violation of God’s law by
the Pharisees (vv. 14-17). (So, Jesus
here does not expand upon the subject of marriage, putting away, and ..
307
remarriage. That is why he doesn’t
add the exception clause).
Neither part “a” nor part “b” is to
be taken in the absolute! (But, some
brethren do this on part “b”, but not
on part “a”! And a few brethren do it
on both! These last ones, at least,
are consistent).
308
Rom. 7:2,3, For the woman that hath
a husband is bound by law to the
husband while he liveth; but if the
husband die, she is discharged from
the law of the husband. 3 So then if,
while the husband liveth, she be
joined to another man, she shall be
called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so
that she is no adulteress, though ..
309
she be joined to another man.
Bound = marriage bond (based on
the vows made).
God alone does the joining (Mt.
19:6), and loosing (19:9).
Adultery involves a married person. Though joined (“married’’ –
literally, “becomes to”) to another
man, she is still bound (by the marriage bond) to her husband. God …
310
did not loose her.
Someone says: “She is not married
to the first husband; Paul says that
she is married to another man”.
It is true that she is not married ( =
living with, as one flesh) to him, but
she is bound to him by the marriage
bond. She is joined (not the Gr.
word for “married”) to the second
man. This is what the text says.
311
The customary, “Till death do
you part”, based upon this passage.
312
If a husband puts away his wife for
just any cause, and neither remarry,
if he dies, is she free to remarry?
Must not some say, No, because
she is a “put-away” woman, and a
put-away woman may never
remarry? Once put away, she’s
always a “put-away” woman. It’s
history!
313
Some say, Yes, because at death
the woman is released by God from
the marriage bond that had bound
her to the husband while he lived.
Among these are brethren who
claim that a “put-away woman” may
not remarry!
And they fellowship each other!
314
1 Cor. 7:10,11, That the wife depart
not from her husband 11 (but should
she depart, let her remain unmarried,
or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave
not his wife.
No legal action (civil procedure) at
all in this scenario, just simple
putting-away.
Marriage is cleaving to each other,..
315
one flesh, being joined together by
God (Mt. 19:5,6).
Spanish: house = casa; marry =
casar (form a house). “Husband”,
German = house band.
Separated, they are no longer married (although bound by the marriage bond).
The Greek word for marry (gameo)
is from the root, “gam” = to bind,
unite. (2 cells unite = gamete)
316
Not married, they are “divorced”
(from Latin, diversus = diverse, disunited, separated, as when we say,
“He divorced himself from that bad
habit”).
That is, he separated himself from
it.
But “civil procedure” is no part of
the passage. “Civil procedure” is
not the only thought in the English
word, divorce!
317
Herein lies much of the confusion
today!
When the wife departs from the
husband, she puts him away! They
are now unmarried.
She has no option to remarry. She
is to remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband (to whom
she is still bound).
If she is reconciled to him, she
“marries” him (becomes one flesh) ..
318
again. She marries a man who was
put away! But such a point is
irrelevant. They were always bound
to each other; God had not loosed
either one!
319
Mk. 6:17,18, For Herod himself had
sent forth and laid hold upon John,
and bound him in prison for the sake
of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife;
for he had married her. 18 For John
said unto Herod, It is not lawful for
thee to have thy brother's wife.
“God recognized that … Herod had
actually married her” – Yes (because
they were living together), but she
was actually still Philip’s wife!
320
Heb. 13:4, Let marriage (Gr., gameo
= bind, unite) be had in honor…and
the bed be undefiled. Marriage / bed
= intimate living!
321
SILENCE OF THE SCRIPTURES
“Where do the Scriptures say that a
put-away woman may remarry?”
Of which put-away woman are you
speaking? Any and everyone in the
absolute? Or, the one in Mt. 19:9b?
The one in Mt. 19:9b is still bound
to her husband, because she was
put away not for fornication. She
can’t remarry.
322
I do not affirm that “a put-away
woman” may remarry. I affirm that an
innocent spouse is given the right to
repudiate a fornicator-mate and to
remarry!
Where in the Scriptures does Jesus
say that a put-away woman, because
she is a put-away woman, may or
may not do anything?
323
I ask: “Where do the Scriptures say
that an innocent wife, not divorced,
may put away her husband for fornication?”
Nowhere, explicitly, but it is implied
in Mt. 19:9a.
I am asked: “Where do the Scriptures say that an innocent, put-away
wife, after her husband commits
adultery, may remarry?
324
Nowhere, explicitly, but it is implied
in Mt. 19:9a, that gives the innocent
spouse the right to repudiate a fornicator-mate and to remarry.
She is an innocent spouse, her
mate has committed adultery against
her in remarrying (Mk. 10:11), and
the cause of fornication gives her
the right to repudiate him and to
remarry.
325
Jesus predicated permission to put
away on the cause of fornication.
Some of my brethren predicate It
on whether or not the fornication is a
pre-civil-divorce fornication or a
post-civil-divorce fornication!
Now, who is adding to the Scriptures?
326
The Simplistic Argument
“Whoever marries a put-away woman commits adultery!”
2 Cor. 9:13, the liberal preacher
says: “Paul said, Your contribution
unto them and unto all. All means,
All! So, to saints and to non-saints.
That’s what the Bible says! There it
is in black and white!”
327
Try the “simplistic argument” on
Lk. 16:18a
“Everyone that putteth away his
wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery.” “That’s what it says,
so, no one may marry another under
any circumstances, even if he divorced his mate for fornication.
There it is in black and white!”
Brethren, is this true?
328
SUMMARIES
Question #1: “May one innocent of
fornication put away his spouse for
fornication if the one innocent of
fornication has already been put
away by divorce (civil or otherwise)?”
This particular scenario is not mentioned in the Scriptures, but these
biblical principles answer this
question:
329
1. A husband and wife are still
bound by God to each other after a
divorce, not for fornication (1Cor.
7:10,11). Death (Rom. 7:2-3) and
fornication (Matt. 19:9a) are the only
two circumstances in which God will
release one from the marriage bond.
“In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus
simply gives the one who puts away
an exception to the general rule.”
330
This is the very point I am making:
the innocent of fornication puts away the guilty mate and may remarry!
In marriage, each one, the man and
the woman, makes his own vows. In
repudiation, each one does his own
repudiating. But only the (innocent)
one who repudiates for fornication is
permitted to remarry, according to ..
331
Jesus.
If death nor fornication has occurred, neither spouse may remarry,
even if a (civil) divorce has taken
place.
2. The spouse innocent of fornication in this scenario is exercising his
God-given right to put away a mate
for committing fornication, and to
marry another, and that without
committing adultery. (The put-away..
332
spouse in Matt. 19:9b did not have
this right because no cause of fornication was in evidence).
3. The spouse innocent of fornication in this scenario is not playing
“the waiting game.” (Or, is it that
others are playing God and impugning motives?)
4. The spouse innocent of fornication in this scenario is not the …
333
“put-away” mentioned in Mt. 5:32b;
19:9b; and Lk.16:18b. In these texts,
a man is forbidden to marry that putaway wife because there was no
cause of fornication present for the
putting-away. Both spouses are still
bound to each other.
In the scenario in question, fornication is present (Mar.10:11, Whoso- ..
334
ever shall put away his wife, and
marry another, committeth adultery
against her).
Question #2: When May One Not
Put Away "For Fornication“?
1. When one, guilty of fornication,
seeks to put away his spouse who is
also guilty of fornication (the right of
Mt.19:9 is given only to the party innocent of fornication).
335
2. When spouses agree to put
away for some cause other than
fornication, wait for fornication to be
committed, and then one “puts away
for fornication” (Mt. 5:32 violated).
Question #3: Who Has the GodGiven Right to Marry?
1. One who has never been in a
God-joined marriage (Gen. 2:24; Mt.
19:6; 1Cor. 7:2).
336
2. One who is innocent of fornication and puts away his spouse for
the cause of fornication (Mt. 19:9).
3. One whose spouse has died
(Rom. 7:2-3; 1Cor. 7:39).
4. One who leaves, or departs from
his spouse, may be reconciled to his
mate (1Cor. 7:10,11).
Question #4: Who Does Not Have a
God-Given Right to Marry?
337
1. One who is put away for some
cause other than fornication, and
against whom no fornication has
been committed. Such a one, upon
remarrying, commits adultery (Mt.
5:32), being still bound to his mate.
2. One who puts away his spouse
for some cause other than fornication. Such a one, upon remarrying
another, commits adultery (Mt. 19:9;
338
Mk. 10:11,12; Lk. 16:18). Also, this
same one is guilty of causing his
mate to commit adultery upon his
mate’s remarriage, even if he himself
does not remarry (Matt. 5:32).
3. One who marries another who
has been put away by his spouse
not for fornication. Such a one commits adultery (Mt. 5:32b; Mt. 19:9b;
Lk. 16:18b).
339
4. One who is bound in marriage
(free of fornication) to a spouse still
living. Such a one, upon remarrying
another, commits adultery (Rom. 7:3;
Mk. 6:17-18).
5. One who is put away for committing fornication. Such a one may not
remarry. There is no Bible passage
authorizing the one guilty of fornication to marry another.
340
“THE SCRIPTURES PLAINLY SAY”
We are told: “The Scriptures plainly
say that whoever marries a divorced
(a put-away) woman commits adultery!”
Well, the Scriptures plainly say that
whoever puts away a wife and marries another commits adultery (Lk.
16:18a).
So, no “put-away” woman may
ever remarry? Then, no
….
341
“putting-away” man may ever remarry?
What about a putting-away man
who does so because his wife commits fornication, and he then marries
again? He’s a “putting-away” man!
And, what about a put-away woman
who has adultery committed against
her (Mk. 10:11), and so with this
scriptural cause she repudiates him
and remarries?
342
If Lk. 16:18b is an absolute, why is
16:18a not an absolute?
The truth is that:
Whoever puts away his wife for
every cause and marries another
commits adultery because there was
not the Scriptural cause, fornication,
for which to do it!
Whoever marries such a put-away
woman commits adultery because ..
343
there was not the Scriptural cause,
fornication, for which to put her
away. She is still bound to her husband. No one else has a right to her.
In marriage two make vows. One
can’t make vows for the other; he
can’t make them for both! Vows are
made independently by each party.
In a putting-away, one disavows.
He cannot disavow for the other ..
344
one. He disavows for himself.
Disavowals are made independently
by each party.
The affirmation that says: “A putaway person can’t put away,” is an
ipse dixit (Latin, “he himself says
it”). It is simply an assertion without
proof.
Which did Jesus say? The CAUSE
for one to repudiate and remarry …
345
is fornication?
or, the CAUSE for one to remarry
is not be a “put-away person”?
346
“TWO PUTTINGS-AWAY”
Some brethren charge that others
are advocating two puttings-away
“when Jesus in Mt. 19:9 speaks of
only one!”
They throw together two different
scenarios: the one presented to
Jesus by the Pharisees (Mt.19:3),and
the one of the present-day controversy raised by the civil-procedure ..
347
brethren, and others. This is the only
way that they can get their so-called
“second putting away.”
That the ungodly spouse put away
his innocent mate without scriptural
cause, even legalizing the divorce in
a human court, has nothing to do
with, nor any control over, the Godgiven right for the innocent mate to
repudiate that spouse who, upon remarrying, committed adultery …
348
against the innocent mate (Mk.
10:11). She may now remarry.
The guilty’s actions are no part of
an “order” that Jesus is said to specify once fornication occurs. Jesus
gives the innocent one the right to
put away and to remarry, without the
provisos of pre or post anything. It
is as simple as that!
349
This is not a “second putting away;”
it is the first and only putting-away
on the part of the innocent one in
reference to the guilty one.
If we want to consider two different
scenarios at the same time, yes,
there would be two puttings-away,
because two different persons did
their own puttings-away: 2 persons,
2 puttings-away! (Mk. 10:11,12)
350
But Jesus dealt with only one
putting-away: that one done by the
innocent spouse.
That’s what I believe and preach:
one putting-away on the part of the
innocent spouse, and for the cause
of fornication committed by the
guilty spouse.
The so-called “two puttings-away”
is a concoction of the civil-procedure brethren and of those who …
351
argue a “race to repudiation.” ( = the
first spouse to repudiate)
There is only one putting-away
(approved by God): that of the innocent one’s putting away the guilty!
Both the man and the woman are
given that prerogative by Christ. No
human court, nor the action of an
ungodly spouse, can nullify a Godgiven prerogative or right.
352
Some are disturbed by the notion
that a wrongly put-away innocent
person may rightly put away his
fornicating mate.
They judge this as wrong on the
basis that it allows a "second" putting-away.
Actually, two married people may
repudiate each other. Nothing in
Scripture nullifies one's ability …
353
to repudiate a mate merely upon the
basis that he was already repudiated.
There is no "race-to-repudiation"
that one must fear “losing!”
One's ability to repudiate a mate is
not conditioned upon whether or not
he was "beaten to" repudiation.
There are as many "puttings-away"
as there are people putting away!
354
Jesus is not concerned about how
many repudiations there might be, or
who was the first to repudiate his
mate. He is concerned about the reason why a person repudiates his
mate!
Sadly, this concern is, for the most
part, ignored by those who constantly emphasize the putting-away procedure.
355
Jesus extended a putting-away
privilege to an innocent person
whose mate has committed fornication against him (Mk. 10:11).
This God-given privilege is extended to the innocent on the basis of
his own innocence, and his mate's
sexual immorality.
It is not extended on the basis of
whether or not the innocent party ..
356
acts quickly enough to beat the guilty to repudiation.
In Mt. 19:9 there is only one putting-away because Jesus was asked
about only one person’s putting
away: the husband’s.
The innocent spouse is exercising
only one putting-away when he puts
away the fornicator-mate.
357
THE “WAITING GAME”
A spouse divorces his mate not for
fornication. How does one know (for
sure!) that the mate is waiting for the
spouse to commit fornication? Why
is the mate not waiting for the
spouse to repent?
Mt. 5:32 condemns the “waiting
game.” When a spouse puts away an
innocent mate, he exposes him to …
358
adultery.
If two spouses mutually agree to
divorce (consensual divorce), they
both violate Mt. 5:32. Neither one
can later, after fornication is committed by one of them, “put away for
fornication,” because each one already put away without the scriptural cause, fornication. Their options:
remain unmarried, or be reconciled.
359
It is a misrepresentation and a maligning of motives to accuse the “original wife” of the proposition to be
engaging in the “waiting game.”
She is still bound to her husband
who put her away not for fornication,
and she is released from that bond
only when she repudiates him for
the adultery committed against her
when he remarries (Mk. 10:11).
360
WHO IS THE PUT-AWAY WOMAN?
The “put-away person” of whom
Jesus speaks is one put-away for
any cause except fornication! (no
cause of fornication involved).
The “put-away person” of the present controversy is one against
whom fornication has been committed, (Mk. 10:11). Stay with the context!
361
Brethren take the “put-away person” of Jesus’ discussion (where
there’s no cause of fornication), and
injects him into a scenario such as
the one covered by the proposition
where it is said of the husband: “and
then commits fornication.”
The put-away wife of Jesus’ scenario is not put away for fornication …
362
and so, is still bound to her husband. This is why the man, who marries her, commits adultery (as of
course she does too).
The put-away wife of the proposition does not commit adultery upon
remarriage, because she now has
the stipulated cause for repudiation
and remarriage: the cause of fornication (Mt. 19:9a)! Her husband ….
363
committed adultery against her (Mk.
10:11)!
364
WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO MARRY?
1. One who has never been in a
God-joined marriage (Gen. 2:24;
Matt. 19:6; 1Cor. 7:2).
2. One who is innocent of fornication and puts away his spouse for
the cause of fornication (Mt. 19:9a).
3. One whose spouse has died
(Rom. 7:2-3; 1Cor. 7:39).
365
4. A spouse, being “unmarried,” who
leaves, or departs from his mate,
may be reconciled to his mate (1Cor.
7:10,11).
366
MY QUESTIONS / HIS ANSWERS
(My comments on his answers)
1. After an ungodly spouse puts
away his mate for just any cause,
excepting fornication, are they both
still bound by the marriage bond?
Yes.
So, the unscriptural putting-away
did not affect the marriage bond in
the least, and it doesn’t. God does
not release a mate from the marriage
bond unless (1) there is death on …
367
the part of the other, or unless (2)
the other commits fornication. So,
when fornication is committed, whether before or after an unscriptural
divorce, is of no significance. Jesus
made it none!
The unscriptural divorce does not
affect the marriage bond; fornication
does!
368
2. Is the phrase “put away,” as used
in your proposition, synonymous
with civil, or legal, divorce?
In my proposition, the phrase "put
away," simply refers to whatever (in
any given culture or society) results
in the dissolution of a marriage.
He evaded the question that merited a Yes or No. Had he said, Yes, he
(like others) would be affirming that
one can’t put away without courthouse action.
369
Had he said, No, the question
would follow: Do you disfellowship
those who make “putting away”
synonymous with civil divorce (i.e.,
courthouse action)?
He must define “dissolution of a
marriage”, since it is not a Bible
phrase. (He means, simply spatial
separation. He has already said that
the marriage bond is still intact!)
370
3. When you use the phrase, “mental
divorce,” as in the advertisement
that you prepared for the public, do
you mean a mere thought process,
or some overt action taking place?
When I use the phrase "mental
divorce" I do so only as a means of
identifying the position that various
brethren have espoused, such as
Weldon Warnock in this quote: …
371
"But someone asks: 'What about a
woman who is put away (divorced)
by a man simply because the man
no longer wanted to be married. Fornication is not involved and the woman repeatedly tried to prevent the
divorce, but to no avail. After a couple of years the man marries another
woman. She certainly is, if she puts
away her husband for fornication. ..
372
She would have to do this before
God in purpose of heart since the divorce has already taken place, legally speaking. She could not go
through the process of having a legal document charging her husband
with 'adultery,' but God would know .
. ." - Weldon Warnock (Searching
The Scriptures, 11/85)
373
Ron Halbrook also espoused the
position I am identifying as "mental
divorce" when he wrote:
". . . But if he commits adultery (before or after his action in the courts
of man), there is something else to
be said by divine law - by the moral
and spiritual law of the court of
God. She now may put away, reject,
or divorce him as a moral and
spiritual act.” Ron Halbrook (1986)
374
He evades the question! I asked:
“Do you mean… (definition).” He
replied, “I do so only as a means” …
(method). He plays with words!
These quotes do not define what is
being called “mental divorce”. He evades my question by citing writings
of other men. (One does not answer
a man’s question by citing phrases
from the writings of others. …
375
Is he debating me or them?)
Repudiation or disavowal is as
much the becoming unmarried as
the taking of the vows were the becoming married. Whatever obligations and commitments were vowed
to become married are now repudiated or disavowed in the act of
becoming unmarried.
376
It’s action on both sides; it is not
only thought-process on either side!
If he means “mere thought process,” he misrepresents me in
insinuating that I believe in such.
I categorically deny that putting
away is a mere thought process!
If he means “some overt action,”
then the phrase, “mental divorce” is
misleading to the public!
377
I categorically deny that putting
away is a mere thought process!
4. Do you believe that any and every
put-away woman, by simple virtue of
being a “put-away woman”, commits
adultery upon remarrying?
I believe that a "put away" woman
who is still bound by the law of God
concerning her previous marriage
commits adultery upon remarrying
another man (obviously, …....
378
reconciliation to the original mate is
authorized in 1 Cor. 7:10,11).
(Throughout his charts the reason
given for the adultery committed by
the put-away woman upon remarrying, is that she is a put-away woman.
This is his absolute rule. But he
then, anticipating 1 Cor. 7:10,11,
makes an exception to his hard and
fast rule: the woman who “puts …
379
asunder” (departs from, chorizo) her
husband, may remarry the put-away
man!) (His answer continues…..)
She does not commit adultery "by
simple virtue of being a put-away
woman", but because she is still
bound by the law of God (Romans
7:2,3). (Emp. mine--bhr)
Apply this “because” (this reason)
to his proposition!
380
This answer contradicts his proposition, and his charts are full of “the
put-away woman.” This answer conflicts with his next answer. Compare
them.
He has an innocent spouse bound
to her fornicator-mate until the day
of her death. Jesus says, “except
for fornication;” Bro. Gwin’s position
says, No, fornication is now totally
irrelevant; the whole issue is that …
381
now she is a put-away woman!
Had he said, Yes, then any and
every putting-away man commits
adultery by simple virtue of being a
“putting-away man.” Such makes an
absolute out of Lk. 16:18a.
So it will have to be admitted that
an innocent husband, never divorced, cannot put away a fornicating
wife, and remarry.
382
Had he said, No, then he would
have had to tell us exactly why she
commits adultery upon remarriage!
He gives the reason: “because she
is still bound by the law of God
(Romans 7:2,3).
Yes, and because she was not put
away for fornication! She and her
wicked husband are still bound to
each other) See Mk.6:17,18.
383
“A put-away woman may never remarry,” we’re told. Why? “Because
she’s a put-away woman.”
Well, then a putting-away man can
never remarry (Lk. 16:18a). Why?
Because he’s a “putting-away man”?
Same type of flawed reasoning!
Real reason: no cause of fornication!
384
5. Does Jesus teach in Matt. 19:9
that a wife may put away her husband who fornicates, and that she
may then remarry?
Matthew 19:9 is written from the
man's point of view, but I believe
that it is a generic teaching that
would be applicable for a woman as
well. However, the woman …
385
would not be able to "put away her
husband who fornicates" if he had
already made her a put away person. In such a case, the marriage is
already dissolved.
His first sentence is well stated; he
sees that Bible principles can apply
to scenarios not specifically addressed. But I am not permitted to
so apply them! He plays by two sets
of rules; one for him, one for me!
386
He can apply “generic teaching”
but I may not. How considerate of
my brother!
But now he is going to deny the
principle, unless it contains his manmade proviso!
He has a box full of put-away
people, and conveniently tosses the
“original wife” of the proposition
into the heap!
Answering question #4, he says:
387
“She does not commit adultery ‘by
simple virtue of being a put-away
woman’,” And now in answer to #5
he says that she may not “put away
her husband who fornicates and
then remarry” because she is a “putaway person”. Which is it, Bro.
Gwin?
388
He had answered, Yes, (and she
may!) then the “original wife” of his
proposition may remarry.
But since he answers with a
conditional Yes, — provided that she
was not previously put away — he is
adding his proviso to Jesus’ teaching. Jesus adds no provisos, but the
false teacher does!
389
Jesus used three words: “except
for fornication.” My opponent adds
seven more: “and provided she was
not previously divorced.”
Had he answered, No, then he
would have condemned every innocent spouse who puts away a
fornicator-mate and remarries.
390
6. Do the passages in Matthew, Mark
and Luke, that imply that the putaway person commits adultery upon
remarriage, have to do with cases in
which the spouse put away the person when he had no cause of fornication with which to do it?
The remarriage of the put away person is not mentioned in Mark
10:11,12. However, the passages in...
391
Matthew (5:32, 19:9) and Luke
(16:18) include cases in which the
woman was put away both FOR and
NOT FOR fornication.
I did not say, “mention;” I said,
“imply.” I did not say, “woman,” I
said, “person.” None of the passages mention the remarriage of any
put-away person. But since the one
marrying a put-away person commits adultery, by implication …..
392
so does the put-away one when he
remarries.
Where did he read in those passages that it says, “whosoever, or,
everyone that, shall put away his
wife for fornication”? What version
is he using?
He knows good and well that Jesus
is answering the Pharisees question
(Mt. 19:3), and so is saying that whosoever shall put away his wife, when
he has no cause of fornication ….
393
with which to do it, commits adultery, and that that is the reason why
he commits adultery.
He wants the reason to be that she
is a put-away woman. Jesus makes
the reason to be the lack of the one
cause for which one is permitted to
put away and to remarry:
fornication!
394
7. Does Luke 16:18b apply in every
case in which a man marries a wife
who has been put away from a husband?
No, but it specifically applies in the
case of our proposition, in which a
man puts away his wife, and then
subsequently commits fornication.
His answer is, No, but on one of his
charts he says, “Luke 16:18b …
395
Absolute? YES.”
He treats the “b” part of Lk. 16:18
as an absolute: whoever marries a
put-away woman commits adultery—
period! This is done throughout his
charts. So, here he equivocates.
This passage applies where no
cause of fornication is in evidence!
But the proposition has fornication
committed! Keep this in mind.
396
8. Was the cause of fornication
involved in the putting-away of the
“put-away woman” of Mt. 19:9b?
It includes that, but is not limited to
that.
Our brother knows full well that
Jesus was answering the Pharisees’
question, giving the exception
clause. So, the cause of fornication
was not involved in her being put
away. The cause was just for any …
397
reason. Jesus based the subsequent
adultery, that would be committed,
on the fact that the putting-away was
not for fornication.
Our brother wants it based on the
simple and sole fact of the woman’s
being a “put-away woman”!
398
9. Does Jesus call adultery that
which results from an innocent
spouse’s putting away a fornicatormate and remarrying?
No, in speaking to married people,
Jesus said that the innocent spouse
may put away a fornicator-mate and
remarry without committing adultery.
In answering, No, our brother has
just surrendered the debate! His …
399
“original wife” has had fornication
committed against her, so she may
put away the fornicator-mate and remarry! This is what Jesus teaches
and what I affirm.
The proposition that I was not allowed to affirm stated that when
fornication occurs, (well, here it has
occurred!) the innocent spouse may
put away the guilty mate and remarry.
400
But notice that he qualifies his answer: “in speaking to married
people,” he adds.
Yes, the scenario presented to
Jesus involved a husband’s putting
away his wife (Mt. 19:3). But my opponent’s proposition represents an
entirely different scenario that was
not treated by Jesus. But he forces a
detail from Jesus’ scenario into his
scenario, and tries to make a point! ..
401
He hopes that we won’t catch that.
That is sophistry!
10. Does Jesus, in his teachings, as
recorded in Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, address his remarks to
whoever puts away a wife, and to
any other man who might marry the
wife that is unlawfully put away, or
does he address his remarks to men
who are to be categorized as ….
402
“putting-away-men” and to wives
who are to be categorized as “putaway wives?
Jesus, in his teachings, as recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, addresses his remarks to whoever puts
away a wife, and to any other man
who might marry the wife that is unlawfully or lawfully put away, and to
“putting-away-men” and to “putaway-wives” and others.
403
The question is an “either / or”, but
his answer amounts to an “all the
above and others!”
He sees the force of the question
and avoids a direct answer. He
knows that Jesus directed his remarks to the husband and to the
man who marries the wife unjustly
put away by the husband. But his
argumentation has Jesus directing
his remarks, as it were, to what a …
404
put-away woman may or may not do!
Such are the machinations of false
teachers. People with the truth don’t
employ such subtleties and evasions.
405
HIS QUESTIONS / MY ANSWERS
(My additional comments)
1. If a man “puts away” his scriptural wife when neither he nor his wife
has committed fornication, and he
does not subsequently commit fornication, is the wife really biblically
“put away?”
If you mean by "biblically ‘put
away’," approved by the Bible, No,
the Bible does not approve of the
putting-away. If you mean, does …
406
the Bible really consider her repudiated by her husband, Yes she is
really put away.
Note: The fact that the Bible uses
the term “put away” does not mean
necessarily that God approves of a
particular putting-away. It speaks of
a “different gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4), but
such is not the gospel of Christ. It
speaks of “vain worship” (Mt. 15:9),
but it is not authorized worship.
407
2. If a man “puts away” his wife FOR
fornication, at what point does she
actually become a “put away” person?
when he makes the decision in his
mind to "put her away"
when he takes some action that is
recognizable and verifiable by other
people
408
She is put away at the point of his
conveying to her that he repudiates,
rejects, dismisses her.
Note: His actions will certainly in
time convey to other people that he
broke his vows to her, but the
putting-away occurred when he
repudiated her (broke his vows to
her, disowned her as his wife,
refused to be a husband to her).
409
3. At what point do a scripturally eligible man and a scripturally eligible
woman become married?
when they make the decision in
their minds to be married
when they take some action that is
recognizable and verifiable by other
people
410
The answer to this question depends upon whether or not one is
talking about a "civil" marriage, or
the marriage covenant.
The Bible teaches that God witnesses the formation of a marriage covenant when an eligible man and an
eligible woman leave their parents
and promise to each other to fulfill
the duties of a marriage contract, or
covenant.
411
A man and woman, whether eligible
or not, become legally married when
they meet civil requirements and are
recognized by the state as"married."
The state recognizes people as
eligible for marriage even if God has
them "bound" to someone else.
Note: Marriage as ordained by God
involves leaving, cleaving and becoming one flesh, Gen. 2:24. ….
412
Legal marriage, in societies where
it is available and customary, is an
expedient for reasons of propertyrights, custody of children, and the
like, but it is not a determinant of
marriage. Common-law-marriage
illustrates this.)
413
4. In Luke 16:18, the first part of the
verse mentions a wife that her husband “putteth away.” Is THAT woman – the woman of the first part of
the verse – included among those
described by the second part of the
verse as “her that is put away from
her husband?”
Yes
No
414
The woman of Lk. 16:18a is a wife
put away by her husband without the
cause of fornication in evidence, and
the woman of 16:18b is such a wife
as is referenced in 16:18a.
Note: The woman of Joel’s proposition is not in Lk. 16:18! Joel’s woman has had adultery committed
against her! The woman of Lk. 16:18
has not!
415
5. You teach that an innocent woman who was “put away” by her
husband, could then “put away” her
husband if he committed fornication.
How would she do this? (Please
describe in detail.)
She does it by doing what he
did: they both repudiate, reject, disavow. Jesus did not describe in detail how precisely this is to be done..
416
and so I am not going to set down
specific, detailed, rules as to how to
do it. Jesus simply states the verbs
of action, to denote the fact of such
being done, and I leave it there.
Note: Both took vows earlier, and
now both can break them, disavow.
One can’t make vows for both and
one can’t break vows for both.
Each does his own vowing and …
417
disavowing. The phrase, “put away,”
translates a Greek word that means
more than simply putting physical
space between one and another! A
husband can leave his wife to go to
work, but that is not “putting her
away.”
418
6. If a woman intentionally drove her
husband to put her away (by being a
“biscuit burner”, bad housekeeper,
etc.) and he did, in fact, put her away
without fornication in evidence,
could she remarry if he later committed fornication?
Burning biscuits and being a bad
housekeeper are faults of a wife that
need correcting, but they do not …
419
drive a husband to put her away not
for fornication!
She has her faults but he (who perhaps doesn’t carry out the garbage
nor puts the cap back on the tooth
paste) sins in putting-away not for
fornication. Jesus says, Mt. 5:32,
that he who puts away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication
(which thing your “husband” did!), ..
420
causes her to commit adultery (if
and when she remarries).
Now you have sequence in your
scenario: “he later committed fornication.” When a spouse of whom
Jesus spoke by implication in Matt.
19:9a has the cause of fornication,
that spouse may put away the fornicator-mate and remarry.
This is the divine permission.
421
If your biscuit-burner and bad
housekeeper is an innocent spouse,
such a one of whom Jesus spoke,
and her husband, to whom you
agree she is still bound by the
marriage bond, has committed fornication, yes, she may repudiate him
and remarry.
422
7. If a man’s wife commits fornication, and he decides to put her away
for this cause, do you believe that,
as a citizen of Kentucky, he must
follow any specific procedure in order to accomplish the putting away?
Well, do you mean that if he has
not been previously put away by his
wife (you can’t have two puttingsaways, you know!)? No matter …
423
which state in which the man lives, if
he wants a legal, civil, divorce he will
have to follow the specific procedure
of that place in order to accomplish
the civil divorce.
The word divorce has the basic
meaning of separation (check this
out in any unabridged dictionary!).
He will separate from his wife the
day he divorces, or puts her away.
424
When he files for civil divorce (a legal dissolution of marriage, per the
dictionary), he will accomplish that
the day that the courts declare him
legally divorced.
8. What breaks the bond in marriage:
Divorce for fornication
Fornication alone (please
explain)
425
Neither of these two options are
acceptable. God controls the marriage bond (Mt. 19:6). He alone
joins, and he alone looses from the
bond.
(The phrase, “break the bond,”
does not denote a biblical concept.
The opposite of join is loose). The
cause of fornication is the only
cause that God has given that permits an innocent spouse to put …
426
away a guilty mate and to remarry.
When the innocent mate exercises
that divine right, God looses him
from the bond.
9. Is “put away” in Luke 16:18 referring to the:
Putting away (breaking up) of the
marriage
Putting away (untying) of the
bond
427
The putting-away is man’s part; the
“untying” or loosening of the
marriage bond is God’s part.
The putting-away of Lk. 16:18 refers to the dismissal, rejection or
repudiation of one’s mate. This
breaks only the physical marriage
relationship.
428
10. If a man puts away his wife for a
reason other than fornication (Luke
16:18), are they still married, or are
they divorced?
They are now unmarried as is the
woman of 1 Cor. 7:11 because he,
upon putting away his wife, broke
the physical marriage relationship,
or the one-flesh relationship. They
are now divorced in the basic, dictionary sense of separation.
429
Of course they are physically separated. They are not now living together.
430
WHOSE “PUTTING AWAY”?
“I have always believed and taught
that fornication must be a prior act
to putting away, not something that
occurs after a sundering of a marriage has already taken place.”
After reading the first part, I immediately asked myself: Whose
putting-away? Yes, Jesus gives to
the innocent spouse the cause of
fornication as the basis for the ….
431
right to put away (and to remarry),
Mt. 19:9a.
Fornication must be “a prior act to”
the innocent’s act of putting-away.
No spouse may scripturally put away
who has not had adultery committed
against him (Mk. 10:11).
But, once that heinous act has
been committed, the innocent
spouse is given the divine right to
repudiate the fornicator-mate and to
remarry.
432
This is precisely what I believe,
along with a host of brethren, for
this is what Jesus teaches.
Is that what the brother, who authored the statement above, has in
mind? No, he has in mind that a
spouse has already put away an
innocent mate, thus sundering the
marriage relationship, and that he
then goes and commits fornication.
433
Therefore the fornication was not
committed before the ungodly
spouse’s putting-away!
If language means anything at all,
he is saying that fornication must
occur before the putting-away by the
ungodly spouse, before his sundering of the marriage relationship!
Now, where in the Scriptures does
one go to read that?
434
Jesus gives, on the grounds of fornication, the right to put away to the
innocent spouse.
The ungodly
spouse’s putting-away, or sundering
of the marriage relationship, is no
part of what Jesus authorizes!
So, what about a case of fornication committed by a spouse after he
has unjustly put away his mate?
Did Jesus put a time-limit on when
435
the fornication had to be committed
in order for it to be a factor in his
divine right to repudiate and to
remarry?
Did he specify that the fornication
must be prior to something and not
after it? No, he did not. Well, then,
where did all of this come from?
Solely and simply from the scruples
of men!
436
The author is committing the common fallacy of many brethren today;
namely, the confusing of two
scenarios.
The first part of the quoted statement above addresses the scenario
put to Jesus. By implication Jesus
says (Mt. 19:9a) that if a husband
puts away his wife for fornication, he
does not commit adultery upon remarriage.
437
So, fornication must occur prior to
the putting away on the part of the
innocent spouse.
That is all that Jesus teaches. He
puts no provisos to it! He does not
say that “if a husband puts away his
wife for fornication, he does not
commit adultery upon remarriage,
unless he has previously been put
away by his ungodly wife for just
any cause.”
438
Such is adding to God’s word!
The second part of the quoted
statement introduces an entirely different scenario; namely, one not put
to Jesus. In this second scenario an
ungodly spouse has unlawfully put
away his mate, and then later goes
and commits adultery or fornication.
It is then affirmed that the fornication, committed after the ungodly …
439
spouse put away, does not count at
all as the cause for the innocent
mate to take any action.
Now the fornication is totally irrelevant and inconsequential! It was a
terrible sin before the ungodly did an
ungodly deed in putting away for
just any cause, but now it is nothing!
Forget about it; don’t even mention
it. Too late! Too bad!
440
The innocent, put-away mate can’t
do a thing about it because God’s
divine permission has been annulled
by the ungodly act of an ungodly
spouse! What a doctrine!
The first part of the author’s statement is true if the putting-away is
done for fornication by the innocent
spouse. This is what Jesus teaches;
this is what he authorizes.
441
But the author of the statement believes it only conditionally; that is,
provided that the innocent spouse
has not previously been put away for
an unlawful reason.
The author of the statement does
NOT have in mind the putting-away
by the innocent spouse, but that
done by the ungodly spouse who
puts away unlawfully!
This fact is covered up by the ….
442
wording of the ambiguous statement
because whose putting away is not
clearly set forth!
The author says, “putting away,”
but what he means is that of the ungodly spouse who puts away unlawfully! Jesus meant the putting-away
of the innocent spouse! Discerning
people can see the difference.
443
Just ask the question: whose
putting away is being considered in
the wording? the innocent’s one, or
that of the spouse who unlawfully
puts away?
444
445