FOR
SHAME, BRO. SMITH!
By
Bill H. Reeves
What
is the problem? There are TWO ISSUES under consideration
here:
1. Bro. J. T. Smith’s public
misrepresentation of me at the Bowling Green debate, Mar. 18, 2005,
for which he refuses to apologize, and
2. The false claim that I believe what
he does about Apoluo!
We consider them in this order.
1.
PUBLIC MISREPRESENTATION
Several times in the 4-day debate, Mar.
10,11,17.18, 2005, with Bro.Tim Haile, Bro. J. T. Smith used a single
chart of his that was composed of wording from two of my
charts, but with an ellipsis (three dots) appearing on his one
chart. Bro. Haile replied more than once that the ellipsis shows that
the last part of the quote from my second chart is not to be
connected to the wording of my first chart, because something is
missing, and therefore Bro. Smith’s concocted chart was
misleading. Bro. Smith ignored Bro. Haile’s observation,
and continued to make his argument based on his arbitrary connecting
of the second part of the quote on my second chart, to the wording of
my first chart. In his final speech of the debate, feeling the force
of Bro. Haile’s objection, Bro. Smith said, in reference to me,
that “he left out something.” He went on to say, “I
figured if he had wanted me to know what it was he would put it
there.” Also, he said: “I don't know what he meant
to say. He left it out.” (In these quoted
statements, the “he” each time refers to Bro. Reeves).
That audience, and all who hear / see
the debate by recording in time to come, are left with the false
accusation that Bro. Reeves put those dots (ellipsis) in his chart
that Bro. Smith. copied from my two charts. But that is not true;
audiences are being misled. I wrote Bro. Smith asking him to
apologize for affirming that I was the one who left out some words
(indicated by the dots), when in reality someone else did! (I
did not know at the time of writing him just who left out the words
and supplied several dots instead).
Please read the following exchange of
correspondence. You will see that Bro. Smith, in his reply to
my letter, and in his May, 2005 editorial in GOSPEL TRUTHS, refused
to apologize for misleading the Bowling Green audience of Mar.
18, 2005 (and future audiences, by recordings). He
misrepresented me and misled the audience, charging me with having
done what now admittedly he himself did!
In his
editorial he dodges the issue of correcting a misrepresentation of me
by stating, “Brother Reeves wrote me and said that I had done
him a disservice by leaving that part out.” I did not
such thing! The reader of the following exchange of
correspondence can judge for himself. I asked Bro. J. T. to
apologize for publicly claiming that I did what someone else did!
(My reference to “disservice” applied only if
someone else besides Bro. Smith had put the ellipsis in the
chart). I did not know at the time that Bro. Smith himself
put the ellipsis in! At the time I could not believe that
Bro. Smith himself would do such a thing and then boldly tell an
audience that I had done it! So I wrote: “If someone else
prepared that doctored chart for you, he did you (and me, and the
audience) a great disservice, and needs to be exposed.”
Read it below. Bro. Smith continues to mislead his audience
(readers): I did not say that Bro. Smith did me a disservice; I said
“he did you (and me, and the audience) a great
disservice.” Bro. Smith can read better than that!
In
the debate Bro. Smith charged me with making the ellipsis and
said: “I don’t know what he meant to say. He left it
out.” In his editorial he says that he (J. T.
Smith) left out the ellipsis “because we were not discussing
Civil procedure.” In his letter to me he said “I
did not look back at the original chart to see what it said. I should
have. I had forgotten that I left that part out.”
Although he admits to me, but not to the public, that he
forgot that he was the one who made the ellipsis, he still offers no
apology at all for misrepresenting me to the public. Is it too much
for Bro. J. T. Smith to say, “I am sorry, Bro. Reeves, that I
misrepresented you publicly, claiming that YOU put the
ellipsis in my chart when in reality I am the one who put it
in”? Apparently it is. How sad.
Now
read, please, my letter to Bro. Smith, his reply to me, and his May
2005 editorial in Gospel Truths.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY
LETTER TO BRO. SMITH, April 11, 2005:
Dear
Bro. Smith:
I apologize for not getting to you
sooner concerning a serious matter, but I have been hindered from
doing so. I just returned from a preaching trip to Spain (and I
leave tomorrow on another trip).
I am
pleased with the conduct of both you and Bro. Haile in conducting the
debate held in Tulsa and in Bowling Green, and I readily recognize
that both sides of the issue were well presented. I look
forward to many brethren’s reading/seeing the debate by
recordings. But I am writing at this time to ask you to
publicly correct a falsehood that was left in the minds of the
audiences, both in Tulsa, and in Bowling Green, in reference to one
of your charts on which you repeatedly displayed as a quote from my
writings, with an ellipsis included, and presented the conclusion
that I agreed with you on the definition of Apoluo, and not with Bro.
Haile for whom I moderated.
You
clearly gave to the audience the idea that I, Bill Reeves, inserted
the three dots (indicating an ellipsis); that I was the one who
purposely left out some words.
I ask
you: Who prepared that chart for you? I am confident that you
did not do it, because had you done it, YOU would have seen that
there is no ellipsis in the wording of my two charts from which the
doctored quotes are taken. You would have known that you
yourself would have to omit something in order for the doctored quote
to serve your purpose. So, you did not make that chart, did
you? Yet you told the audience Friday night in Bowling Green, in your
second affirmative speech, that, in reference to me, “he left
out something.” You went on to say, “I figured if he had
wanted me to know what it was he would put it there.”
Also, you said: “I don't know what he meant to say. He
left it out.”
Bro.
Smith, anyone who checks my two charts, from which your one chart was
constructed with the ellipsis, will see that I did not leave out
ANYTHING! If someone else prepared that doctored chart for you,
he did you (and me, and the audience) a great disservice, and needs
to be exposed. I expect you to tell me who the person is.
But you need to apologize for telling the audience something as fact
that you did not know! That chart of yours is now circulating
among brethren on web site, disk and cassette.
I
expect a correction of this lie, left in the minds of the audience,
and going out in circulation to many who were not at the debate, in
either place, as the recordings of the debate are circulated.
You
should make the correction:
1.
stating that you claimed that Bro. Reeves made the ellipsis, leaving
out words, and that you made that claim with no basis whatsoever for
doing it, and that what you said is false.
2.
admitting that the ellipsis changes the meaning of two separate
quotes of Bro. Reeves, and gives the impression that they are one
continual thought, representing me as agreeing with you on the word
Apoluo, and disagreeing with Bro. Haile. I do NOT agree with
you and the doctored chart that you used totally misrepresents me.
3.
stating that anyone who checks the two charts of Bro. Reeves, from
which one was doctored on purpose, can plainly see that Bro. Reeves
did NOT construct your chart that has the ellipsis and was presented
repeatedly as a construct of mine.
4.
admitting that there is no ellipsis at all in the two charts of Bro.
Reeves that are numbered at the bottom of your chart that gives a
quote as from me. (The fact that your chart has the numbering
of both of my charts should have told you that material from two
charts doesn’t normally fit on one chart, unless something is
omitted!)
Brethren
can check for themselves (as you should have done before accepting
that doctored chart) by going to Tim Haile’s web site
(Biblebanner.com) and looking at charts #186 and #187. The two
charts of mine read thusly:
CHART
# 186
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!
CHART
#187
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).
Your
chart, containing part of two charts of mine, was designed to show
that I agree with you, and am at odds with Bro. Haile, on the matter
of Apoluo. That is wherein the lie consists. What is on
the first of my TWO charts is one thought, and the SECOND chart of
mine introduces a completely DIFFERENT thought from the first (“Civil
procedure is a process that follows this”). No wonder
that whoever made the chart that you used put three dots between the
two different thoughts! Bro. Haile repeatedly, in answer to
your unjust use of the contrived chart, stated that your quote of
Bro. Reeves’ two charts has an ellipsis in it, and that the
last phrase is different from the first part of the quote. But,
finally you, it appears to me, in desperation, attributed the
ellipsis TO ME! How did you know that, Bro. Smith? How
could you boldly make that claim? You had to guess that (and
erred), but you boldly stated it as fact! If you did not make
that chart, how could you, without investigation, be sure just who
put the ellipsis in it?
If
someone else made that chart, he owes you an apology. You had
confidence in that person and went ahead and repeatedly used the
chart. But that does not excuse you for claiming without any
proof at all that I put that ellipsis in it. Now that you know
that I did not put it in (if this is your first knowledge), you owe
me an apology and to that person who concocted that chart you owe a
rebuke. I might ask: What has the brother been thinking who
heard you claim that I put the ellipsis in the chart yet knows that
he is the one who did it, and he had not told you so (if indeed
someone besides you constructed the chart)?
This
requested apology should be circulated in GOSPEL TRUTHS. A
statement of the apology also ought to be sent to Bro. Bennie Johns
to include in the mail-out of his CDs of the debate, and sent also to
Jeff Belknap to put on his web site, since he has put all of your
charts on his site.
I
believe that you will do this that is honorable, because I consider
you an honorable man. If another constructed that chart that
you used, I am sorry to learn that there are brethren who will
purposely misrepresent a brother, and in this case, allow you to
unwittingly think that the chart is legitimate, that it contains an
ellipsis of mine. (Even though you might have thought that it
was mine, you did not know that, and therefore you are without excuse
in affirming that I put that ellipsis there).
That
chart needs to be speedily withdrawn from circulation. I
presently conclude that that ellipsis was inserted by one of your
helpers in order to misrepresent me, and truth is not served by such
carnal tactics. I say that another must have made the chart
because I cannot presently believe that you yourself made the chart,
putting in an ellipsis, and then publicly affirming that I put it
in! That would not be the J. T. Smith that I have known of
through the years. So, please tell me just who made that chart,
and speedily see that an apology is forthcoming.
Thank
you, my brother. Yours, Bill H. Reeves
Spanish
web site / sitio web:
billhreeves.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May
4, 2005, BRO. J. T. SMITH’S REPLY TO MY LETTER
Brother
Reeves,
I
received your rather lengthy letter while I was in Everett,
Washington in a gospel meeting. Sorry about taking so long to reply.
I made the chart. After reading the
complete statement of the charts as you sent them, I remembered
making the chart as I presented it. It was one of the first ones I
made. Since I knew we were not going to discuss civil authority I
simply left the part out but during the discussion I did not look
back at the original chart to see what it said. I should have. I had
forgotten that I left that part out. However, if the ellipsis had
been left in, how would it have changed the meaning of the chart? It
perfectly describes the period of time in which the meaning of apoluo
still subsisted as you correctly stated in your last sentence of your
second chart. "In the meantime, (while
the civil procedure was taking place- jts) the two
spouses are separated (unmarried—not living together)."
The problem is not with the ellipsis. The problem is that your chart
blows your entire theory out of the water.
I
think we know who was "doing things in desperation" - we
will let the listeners decide.
I am
correcting the chart in my Editorial in the May issue of GT. Until,
however, you point out to me how the ellipsis changed the meaning of
the chart in any way I will continue to use it. It is a good chart
and teaches the truth. Brotherly, J. T.
BRO.
SMITH’S EDITORIAL IN GOSPEL TRUTHS (May 2005)
In
Bro. Smith’s editorial in GOSPEL TRUTHS, May 2005, p. 3, in
reference to my request for an apology for attributing to me what he
himself did, he wrote:
“As one
proponent of this position said of ‘apoluo,’:
|
|
|
|
|
Apoluo (put away) Means Action
· 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 her; he declares her
repudiated. That’s not merely mental / thought process;
that’s action. Civil procedure is a process that
fol-lows this and that often takes much time to
complete. In the mean-time, the two
spouses are separated
(unmar-ried---not living together).
· The
two spouses are separated (unmarried---not liv-ing
together).” (Bill
Reeves’ charts 185, 188 used during his debate with Joel
Guinn).
|
“During the debate with Tim Haile
I used the above statements by brother Bill Reeves because it teaches
the truth as we both understand the word apoluo. In the quotation I
left out ("Civil procedure is a process that follows this and
that often takes much time to complete. In the mean-time")
because we were not discussing Civil procedure. Brother Reeves wrote
me and said that I had done him a disservice by leaving that part
out. However, as I told brother Reeves in reply, I see nothing in the
part that was left out that would in any way change the thought or
meaning of his statement.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY
REVIEW OF BRO. SMITH’S LETTER OF REPLY TO ME:
A.
Bro. Smith, in replying to my letter to him, writes:
“I
made the chart. After reading the complete statement of the charts as
you sent them, I remembered making the chart as I presented it. It
was one of the first ones I made. Since I knew we were not going to
discuss civil authority I simply left the part out but during the
discussion I did not look back at the original chart to see what it
said. I should have. I had forgotten that I left that part out.”
Answer:
He here confesses (to me privately) that he made the chart
with the ellipsis in it, the one shown repeatedly in the
debate. But, where is his apology for telling the
Bowling Green audience, and as many as will read/hear the debate,
that Bro. Reeves put the ellipsis in? Has Bro. Smith no
humility about him? Why, he didn’t as much as publish in
his editorial this explanation for what he had done (even
though it contains no apology)! This is why I say, “For
shame, Bro. Smith.”
Saying
“I forgot” is not a satisfactory explanation for his
emphatic false claims in Bowling Green, nor is it an APOLOGY!
Would Bro. Smith appreciate being publicly misrepresented three times
and then receive only a statement that the one misrepresenting him so
emphatically did so simply because he “forgot?”
Dear reader: would you feel that nothing more was forthcoming than a
simple “I forgot?” THAT CORRECTS A PUBLIC
MISREPRESENTATION? To privately say “I forgot”
gives an explanation to one person, but does not correct a
repeated, public misrepresentation.
B.
He continues to say:
“However,
if the ellipsis had been left in, how would it have changed the
meaning of the chart? It perfectly describes the period of time in
which the meaning of apoluo still subsisted as you correctly stated
in your last sentence of your second chart. "In the meantime,
(while the civil procedure was taking place- jts) the two spouses are
separated (unmarried—not living together)." The problem is
not with the ellipsis. The problem is that your chart blows your
entire theory out of the water. I am correcting the chart in my
Editorial in the May issue of GT. Until, however, you point out to me
how the ellipsis changed the meaning of the chart in any way I will
continue to use it. It is a good chart and teaches the truth.”
1.
“However, if the ellipsis had been left in, how would it have
changed the meaning of the chart?”
Answer:
It would have shown the audience the context in which I made that
statement that you out of context wanted to lead the audience
to connect directly with the statement concerning Apoluo that was on
the first chart of mine! That’s the
difference. If you had wanted to correctly represent me, you
would have presented my two charts in their entirety.
From that you could have drawn any conclusion you desired, but the
audience would have had their own conclusion to draw!
2. “It perfectly describes the
period of time in which the meaning of apoluo still subsisted as you
correctly stated in your last sentence of your second chart.”
Answer: No, the meaning of
Apoluo does not “still subsist(ed).” That’s
your ipse dixit. Apoluo means repudiate, reject, dismiss.
It does not mean spatially separate, or put distance between, and you
have never cited a Greek authority that so claims! The physical
separation of two spouses is the result, or consequence, of
the action of Apoluo. (If there are two partners in a work, and
one vilifies the other, and from that there results a separation,
cannot the one who was vilified now vilify the other one? Once
vilified, the one vilified can’t vilify? Tell that to the
one who is vilified!
Apoluo means “dismiss,” or
“repudiate,” according to Thayer. Many, many
versions translate Apoluo as repudiate. Repudiate means: “1.
to refuse to have anything to do with; to disown; to cast off
publicly, as a son, or divorce, as a wife. 2. to refuse to
accept, or acknowledge; to deny the validity or authority of.
Syn.— disavow, disown, discard, abjure, renounce, disclaim”
(Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary).
I did not “correctly
state(d)” in my last sentence of my second chart that the
meaning of Apoluo still subsisted. After the action of
Apoluo, repudiation (my point in my first chart), a physical
separation occurs and continues during the time of the civil divorce
proceedings. That is the point of my second chart.
3. “’In the meantime, (while
the civil procedure was taking place- jts) the two spouses are
separated (unmarried—not living together).’ The problem
is not with the ellipsis. The problem is that your chart blows your
entire theory out of the water.”
Answer: Yes, the problem
is with the ellipsis that publicly Bro. Smith repeatedly
affirmed that I put (somewhere) in my two charts. I put
no such ellipsis in either chart! He did it. Does
an ellipsis mean anything at all to Bro. Smith? Is he content
for others to quote two sources of information from him, put an
ellipsis in, claiming that he did it, then make one statement
of the two, and attribute their conclusion to him?
That is what he did! That is his way of “blowing a theory
out of the water!”
4. “I am correcting the chart in
my Editorial in the May issue of GT. Until, however, you point out to
me how the ellipsis changed the meaning of the chart in any way I
will continue to use it. It is a good chart and teaches the truth.”
Answer: No, he did
not correct the chart (that he concocted for the debate) in
his editorial of the May issue of GT. To correct the chart that
he made for the debate he should have shown a chart with my two
separate, distinct charts on it (instead on one chart with an
ellipsis in it)! At the bottom of his concocted chart for the
debate he had the numbers of my two charts; so why didn’t he in
the editorial simply build a chart showing on it the two numbered
charts of mine? That would have corrected his
concocted chart for the debate with the ellipsis in it. Why not
let the audience decide what my two charts teach?
But,
what did he do in the editorial? He showed a box (that would
naturally indicate a chart). Check it again above where I cite
his May 2005 editorial. He writes: “As one proponent
of this position said of ‘Apoluo,’:” The
reader naturally expects that what follows his colon will be a direct
quote of what one of his opponents has said. But not so;
that box of his does not contain the exact wording of what his
opponent (Reeves) has said! He puts a title in his box, which I
did not have in my chart. He then between quotation marks gives
what I did have in my two charts, but not divided as I divided
the charts. (He twice has “her” where I have “him,”
but I’ll overlook that). This box has three bullets; my charts
have none! Compare this box with my two charts as given above in
my letter to him! Surely the editor of a journal knows that
misrepresenting a source is not allowed even in a 7th
grade English class!
(a) His first bullet is only part
of my first chart!
(b) His second bullet contains the last
part of my first chart combined with the content of my
second chart!
(c) His third bullet is a repetition of
the last half of my second chart!
Bro. Smith has chopped my two charts to
pieces and combined them in a way to suit his purposes. This is
his way of shooting a theory out of the water!
His editorial makes a worse rent
of what was done in his concocted chart displayed repeatedly in the
Haile-Smith debate. His readers will not detect this at all, since he
did not put in his editorial what he wrote to me privately: “I
am correcting the chart in my Editorial in the May issue of GT.”
The readers do not see that Bro. Smith’s box in his editorial
is a “correct(ion)” of what he presented in the debate;
he doesn’t tell them so. He keeps it from them. Bro. Smith
simply will not apologize nor desist in misrepresenting a brother in
Christ. For shame!
This simple question will show the
dishonesty of Bro. Smith in so presenting his “box:”
Can anyone tell from Bro. Smith’s boxed-in material in his
editorial just which is Bro. Reeves’ chart # 185, and
which is his #186? Of course not; no one can!
Bro. Smith not only put an ellipsis in his debate chart (claiming
that I put it in), but here in his editorial he concocts his
corrected (?) box to run together what he wants run-together!
Where is his honesty? Is this the way he would want his
writings to be handled? Surely he has heard of the Golden Rule!
He wants to know “how the ellipsis
changed the meaning of the chart in any way.” Simple: the
ellipsis (the part omitted) takes from the audience / reader the fact
that two distinct charts, representing two distinct thoughts,
are involved. All Bro. Smith needed to do in the debate, and in
his editorial, was to show my two charts, and make any point
concerning them that he cared to do, but, of course, that would not
so easily lead his audience as he desired. The ellipsis would
help him to misrepresent me as believing and teaching what he
does; that is, make Apoluo mean physically separate, or put distance
between! He wanted the word “separated” from my
second chart to be joined to the definition of “Apoluo”
in my first chart. How accomplish that? By the ellipsis!
I categorically deny that the last part of my second chart can
rightly be attached to the first chart.
Actually his readers have no idea that
this editorial box is intended to be a correction of a matter.
Bro. Smith refuses to publicly admit what he privately
admitted to me (concerning his public affirmation in reference
to the ellipsis), and although he promises to me privately
that he will make a correction, he does not publicly inform
his readers that his box is his promised correction of a matter!
He knows that his ellipsis is important
to him in this case, because in his editorial, he did not give my two
charts as stand-alones, but chopped them up to suit his
purpose! He did add to the mix the ellipsis, but
connected it all up to suit his purpose. And, he tells me, he
intends to continue to use his debate chart with the ellipsis.
Yes, it is a good chart for misrepresentation!
II.
THE FALSE CLAIM THAT I BELIEVE WHAT HE DOES ABOUT “APOLUO”
A.
In Bro. Smith’s May 2005 editorial in GT, he writes:
“During
the debate with Tim Haile I used the above statements by brother Bill
Reeves because it teaches the truth as we both understand the word
apoluo. In the quotation I left out ("Civil procedure is a
process that follows this and that often takes much time to complete.
In the mean-time") because we were not discussing Civil
procedure. Brother Reeves wrote me and said that I had done him a
disservice by leaving that part out. However, as I told brother
Reeves in reply, I see nothing in the part that was left out that
would in any way change the thought or meaning of his statement.”
1.
“During the debate with Tim Haile I used the above statements
by brother Bill Reeves because it teaches the truth as we both
understand the word apoluo.”
Answer:
He “used the above statements,” but they were taken from
two distinct charts of mine. He doesn’t say that
he took the two charts of Bro. Reeves and presented them as
one chart with an ellipsis. What he took arbitrarily, and out
of context, are two statements, isolated from my two
charts, and he presented them in his chart in a way to
misrepresent Bro. Reeves! He presented in the debate a
contrived chart of his, made up of one of my charts, and part of
another, and joined them together as if one chart, and told the
audience at Bowling Green that Bro. Reeves put in the ellipsis that
is in his concocted chart. That is what he did! Here in
his editorial he makes no mention of what he said in the Bowling
Green debate, that Bro. Reeves was the one who put in the ellipsis
that appears in Bro. Smith’s debate chart.
No,
Bro. Smith and I do not “understand the word apoluo”
alike. Not at all! What I believe about the definition
of Apoluo is in my first of the two charts that Bro. Smith runs
together with an ellipsis (and he tells me that he will continue to
do so!). What he believes about the meaning of Apoluo,
as he sets it forth in his May 2005 editorial, is first one
thing, and then another! First he tells his readers that
Apoluo means “put away, dismiss, depart, send away.”
This he can show in Thayer’s lexicon (excepting “put
away”). But then a few lines later he writes, concerning
“put away,” “dismiss, depart, send away;
break up of a marriage; severing, separating.” Question:
Now where in Thayer’s work does he read what he added to
“dismiss, depart, send away?” He slipped in some of
his own definitions (break up of a marriage, severing,
separating)! Did he think that we would not catch that?
In Thayer there is no “break up of a marriage, severing,
separating” as definitions of Apoluo! (More on this
later below).
2.
“In the quotation I left out (“Civil procedure is a
process that follows this and that often takes much time to
complete. In the mean-time”) because we were not
discussing Civil procedure.”
Answer:
In his editorial Bro. Smith tells his readers that he “left
out” the part of my second chart’s text that he has in
parentheses and bold type. Here he admits that he had a
specific purpose in leaving out those words of mine in my second
chart. But, he says nothing to his readers about “forgetting”
(as he does in his private letter to me!). It is a little hard to
believe that he forgot what he purposely had done! He
offers no apology for what he said publicly in Bowling Green (in
neither the letter to me nor in his editorial). He just can’t
bring himself to say, “I’m sorry, Bro. Reeves; I said
publicly that you left out those words, but it was I who did it.”
In his editorial he simply says “I left out,” and gives
his reason for it, but he doesn’t connect that to the public
misrepresentation of me in the Bowling Green debate.
If
one wants to see the concocted chart that Bro. Smith used in the
debate with Bro. Haile, just take my two charts (given above in my
letter to him), leave out the part of my second chart that in
bold font he mentions here in his editorial as purposely omitted, and
in its place put three dots (the ellipsis). In that way one will see
run together the wording of my first chart and the last part
of my second chart.
3.
“Brother Reeves wrote me and said that I had done him a
disservice by leaving that part out. However, as I told brother
Reeves in reply, I see nothing in the part that was left out that
would in any way change the thought or meaning of his statement.”
Answer:
Our brother continues to misrepresent me and to mislead his
audience. I did not write to Bro. Smith and tell him
that he had done me a disservice! In his editorial he dared
not give the quote of what I actually wrote him concerning
“disservice,” but rather he changed what I wrote.
Here is what I wrote: “If someone else prepared that
doctored chart for you, he did you (and me, and
the audience) a great disservice, and needs to be exposed.
I expect you to tell me who the person is” (bold type and
underlining mine, bhr). At the time of writing Bro. Smith I did not
know just who put the ellipsis in his chart, but I certainly didn’t
think that he had done it, or else he would not have
repeatedly said in the Bowling Green debate that I was the one
who put it in. As I have already remarked: Bro. Smith continues
to mislead his audience (readers): I did not say that Bro. Smith did
me a disservice; I said “he did you (and me, and the audience)
a great disservice.” Any editor can read better than that!
He
says that he sees nothing in the part that was left out (on purpose)
that would in any way change the thought or meaning of “his
statement.” (In his letter to me—see it above—he
wrote, “change the meaning of the chart,” not
statement!) To just what “statement” of mine
is he here referring? This is confusing language. I suppose
that he means by “his statement” the remainder of my
second chart. The issue is that the part left out on purpose allows
the rest of my second chart to be more easily joined to what is in my
first chart, and in this way a chart of his can be concocted
to make it appear that I agree with his false position regarding the
definition of Apoluo. The part left out by Bro. Smith is part and
parcel of my second chart! The fact remains that Bro. Smith
deliberately created a chart, put at the bottom of it in small
font the numbers of my two charts, but did not give the
texts of my two charts! He doctored them, leaving out on
purpose half of my second chart so as to manipulate the minds of his
hearers / readers toward a false conclusion that misrepresents me!
The
last statement on the chart just preceding the first of the
two charts of mine that Bro. Smith doctored, states: “The
putting-away, or repudiation, occurs before the civil
procedure.” Bro. Smith, having gone over my charts,
conveniently left out this statement that shows that I distinguish
between the action of Apoluo and the separation that follows.
B.
In the May 2005 editorial in GT, Bro. Smith also writes:
“Apoluo As Used in New
Testament
“The words ‘put away’
are translated from the Greek word apoluo. ‘Apoluo’
(put away, dismiss, depart, send away) is a word the Holy Spirit used
for the break up of a marriage. When used in relation to husband and
wife, it speaks of total rejection of a spouse, a break up of a
marriage, a severing (separating – Matthew 19:6) of the
marriage relationship.
“What is there left to ‘put
away’ (apoluo) after a break up, severing, separating of
the marriage relationship? What, I say is left, what is there
to ‘put away’ (dismiss, depart, send away; break up of
a marriage; severing, separating). None of this can be done as
it has already been done and the marriage is gone.”
Answer: I have already above
referred to the subtleties of Bro. Smith as he defines Apoluo.
But again notice that he first gives proper definitions of the
word Apoluo, even as Thayer for the most part gives them. But
then Bro. Smith slips in, on his own authority, the
definitions that his faulty position demands! Look again at
the part of his editorial cited just before this paragraph, and which
he puts in bold type. This is what he does:
1. First he properly defines Apoluo:
dismiss, depart, send away.
2. Then he claims that this word is used
by the Holy Spirit “for the break up of a marriage.”
Proof, Bro. Smith! Where in the scriptures do you read of “a
break up of a marriage?” That is your language.
The Holy Spirit uses Apoluo to show what one spouse does to
another spouse, his mate! He dismisses, or repudiates,
him. Yes, a physical separation of the two most likely will
result from that, but Apoluo doesn’t mean something done to “a
marriage relationship.”
3. He then tells us what the truth of
the matter is, saying, “When used in relation to husband and
wife it speaks of total rejection of a spouse.” But
he doesn’t stop here, because his “marital status”
argument has not yet been established, and it is germane to his
false position! He goes on say what is not in the
word Apoluo, what is not in his own first definition of
Apoluo as he gives it in the first sentence of the quote above from
his editorial!
4. He then adds to his correct
statement, “it speaks of total rejection of a spouse,”
the following: a break up of a marriage, a severing
(separating—Matthew 19:6) of the marriage relationship.”
Bro. Smith interjects Matt. 19:6, but surely he knows that Apoluo
does not appear in that passage. He wants “separation”
in Apoluo, and goes to a passage for it that does not employ Apoluo!
In Matt. 19:6 Jesus uses Chorizo (leave, as in 1 Cor.
7:10,11), employing synecdoche, wherein a part is put for the whole.
The “putting asunder” (Chorizo, leaving) is put for the
whole process of repudiating (Apoluo) a mate, leaving (Chorizo) the
mate and no longer keeping the vows and commitments made by the two
when God joined them in marriage. Does Bro. Smith need to be reminded
of the simple fact that no one leaves, or depart from, a mate in
marriage without a reason? Simple, physical separation
is not necessarily “putting asunder”(Chorizo), or else a
husband could go to the grocery store and the wife, seeing him leave
her, could conclude that he has put asunder the marriage covenant
that they together had made. No, when a husband does what
Chorizo means, the wife will know because he will have already made
known to her the reason: repudiation, rejection, dismissal
(Apoluo)!
Bro. Smith and his colleagues insert
spatial separation into Apoluo, and then “triumphantly”
claim that once there has been a “break up of a marriage,”
the one put away cannot Apoluo! Let them define Bible terms
with their own definitions and they can “prove” anything!
Two people vow in making a marriage
covenant, and two people can disavow! If one without the cause
of fornication does it (disavows, repudiates, rejects, dismisses),
physical separation will likely result because he will precipitate
it. But the other, if a faithful spouse, and not having the
cause of fornication, will not Apoluo (disavow, repudiate, reject,
dismiss) and thus will not be guilty of precipitating a physical
separation. The action of the ungodly spouse does not free him from
the marriage bond, nor cause him to cease to be the husband or wife
of the mate he repudiated. Ungodly action does not deprive the
innocent, faithful spouse of his divine right to repudiate a mate who
commits fornication. God gives and controls that right, not
sinful man! God’s permission does not hinge on man’s
ungodly action, some of my brethren to the contrary.
We remind Bro. Smith, and his
sympathizers, of the simple fact that Jesus spoke of APOLUO A
HUSBAND, OR WIFE, not a marriage! Apoluo refers to what
a spouse does to a mate, not to a marriage. Surely Bro.
Smith has read all the pertinent passages where Apoluo appears in
reference to what one may or may not do to a spouse!
Arguing on a secular definition that the world has for divorce (see
Webster’s dictionary), that is, “the legal dissolution of
a marriage,” Bro. Smith and others want to Apoluo a
marriage! That is all that they want to see when Apoluo is
activated.
They
would do well to consider the simple fact that there is more
to the marriage covenant than simply physical, fleshly union.
There is leaving and cleaving, commitment, vows, covenant, divine
witnessing and bond. Thayer says that Apoluo, as to divorce, means
“dismiss, repudiate.” A spouse, who without divine cause
repudiates his mate, rejects him, thus breaking his vows. He
dismisses him from all that the spouse had vowed in reference to him,
repudiating him as a mate in the marriage covenant that they had
made. As a result or consequence of this action (Apoluo), he departs
from the mate and there follows a physical separation of the one
flesh relationship. Here Chorizo (depart, 1 Cor. 7:11; Mat. 19:6)
comes into the picture. But in this case the Apoluo action was NOT
FOR THE CAUSE OF FORNICATION; so, still the marriage bond remains
(and Bro. Smith believes it), and still they two continue to be
husband and wife (and Bro. Smith believes it), because God does not
release them from their marriage bond. So, when fornication
occurs, the innocent, faithful spouse is granted permission to
repudiate the fornicator-mate, and to remarry. What the ungodly
spouse might have already done has no bearing on the divine
permission. God controls that!
Bro.
Smith will not apologize for his public misrepresentation of me as
being the one who put in the ellipsis that, as it turns out, he
himself put in!
He
continues to misrepresent me as believing what he does on the word
Apoluo, accomplishing this misrepresentation by doctoring my
charts, and he tells me that he intends to continue to use his
concocted chart. So, there is little value in my calling upon
him again to discontinue using it. Apparently the
misrepresentation will go on.
For
shame, Bro. Smith!
Concluding
remarks:
1. In order to Apoluo, God does
not require that the innocent spouse be able to effect a physical
separation between himself and the fornicator-mate, but that he have
the cause of fornication. Some brethren require spatial
separation; God requires cause! They add to what God
requires.
2. Jesus, in Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk.
10:11,12; and Luke 16:18 teaches that whoever Apoluo’s a
mate, not having the cause of fornication for doing so:
a. causes that mate to commit adultery
(upon remarriage, which thing the mate is likely to do)
b. he himself, should he marry again,
commits adultery
c. anyone marrying the mate so put away
commits adultery
3. By implication, stating the exception
clause (“except for fornication”), Jesus teaches that the
innocent, faithful spouse, upon Apoluoing the fornicator-mate
and remarrying, does not commit adultery.
4. Some brethren are not content with
what Jesus teaches. They take phrases from his teaching in the
scenario in which no fornication is involved in the Apoluoing,
and arbitrarily apply them to cases where the cause of fornication is
now in evidence. Thus they add their provisos to the
teaching of Jesus, and are dividing the brotherhood over it as they
cancel gospel meetings of preachers who don’t accept their
scruple, and otherwise they disfellowship brethren. They
subjugate cause to procedure, the requirement of Jesus
to the provisos of men. Thus they pervert the Scriptures,
albeit (admittedly in many cases) with good intentions. How
sad!
We call upon them to desist in their
divisive work and to keep their scruples to themselves, and there can
be peace.
*
* *
Footnote:
I
am prepared to receive what inevitably will come from some brethren
when this article is read: “Bro. Reeves got his feelings hurt,
is being petty, is whining, whimpering, begging for sympathy, making
a mountain out of a molehill,” “and such like”
(Gal. 5:21).. It will come from brethren who are not like Jesus
(Heb. 1: 8,9), for they are not concerned with uprightness and
righteousness for all and at all times, but with supporting
their party and those who lead it, whether he is right or wrong. But,
with that carnal spirit, what else can they do? So, to such I
say: Bring it on; there’s nothing new under the sun. I am
concerned with being right with God, cost what it may. Others may
evade the issue as they choose.
Spanish
web site / sitio web:
billhreeves.com