Joel Gwin's first chart contains the proposition for the debate. By affirming this proposition, brother Gwin denies the right of a "scriptural wife" (one who was fulfilling her scriptural duties as a wife) to put away her fornicator-husband and marry another. Why does Joel deny her this right? Because of her status as a "put-away" woman. Please consider his chart:

   The proposition affirms that:

• The husband puts away (rejects, repudiates, disavows) an innocent wife (because she is described as his “scriptural” wife!)
• He does it not for a scriptural cause, and therefore neither he nor she may remarry, because God has not loosed either one from the marriage bond. God will release from the marriage bond only an innocent spouse whose mate has committed fornication.
• The man, still bound by God to his wife, commits fornication.
• The wife, against whom fornication has been committed, is denied the permission that God gives to the innocent spouse to repudiate the fornicator-mate and to remarry.

This is why the proposition is false!

   Throughout the debate, and though he was always in the affirmative, brother Gwin avoided giving a clear definition of what the Bible means by "putting-away." He insisted that the debate was not over divorce "procedure," then turned right around and insisted that it does involve some "method." He never defined what that "method" was, but he repeatedly asserted that once that method is done by one marriage partner, the other one has no right or ability to do anything. Thus, even though the man in the proposition was guilty of fornication, and even though the marriage bond remains intact, Joel forbids the innocent wife to put away her fornicator mate.

   Had Joel defined his proposition in his opening speech he would have had great difficulty convincing the average person that he was right to affirm it. The expression "put away" simply means to dismiss from the house or repudiate, to reject or disavow (see Thayer). Consider the impact this definition has on brother Gwin's proposition. Had brother Gwin defined his proposition he would have described the man of his proposition as rejecting or dismissing his wife. Then, after leaving his scriptural wife (see "aphiemi" in 1 Cor. 7:11), he then commits fornication with another woman. Brother Gwin argued for two nights that this fornicator's innocent wife has no right to put him away for his fornication and remarry. Joel argued this on the basis of her being a "put-away" person. Brother Reeves argued that the innocent wife could put the fornicator away and marry another. Jesus taught that one may put away his fornicator mate and marry another (Matt. 19:9a). By defining the expression "put-away," one easily sees that brother Gwin's position and proposition deny the innocent wife the right to put away her fornicator mate and remarry on the mere basis that she was rejected and deserted by her ungodly mate! Brother Gwin's position renders the man's fornication irrelevant just because it is committed after he leaves or rejects his scriptural wife. He prohibits the scriptural wife from taking any action of repudiation against her fornicator husband on the mere basis that he had first repudiated her.

   In this next chart brother Gwin shows what brother Reeves affirms by denying the proposition:

   This chart is not “Brother Reeves’ Position,” but rather is the position that the principle of Matt. 19:9a implies. It affirms that:

• The wife is a “scriptural wife.”
• The husband has committed fornication against her (Mk. 10:11).
• Armed with this cause, fornication, the original or scriptural wife may repudiate the fornicator-mate and to remarry (Matt. 19:9a).

This is why this position is biblical.

   By insisting that the "put-away" woman cannot put away her fornicator-husband, brother Gwin insists that a person cannot repudiate his vows and commitments to a mate if that mate has already repudiated his vows and commitments to him! He says a put-away person cannot put away. Jesus said an innocent person can put away his sexually immoral mate and marry another. Jesus did not condition this privilege upon whether or not the innocent person's ungodly spouse had acted first! Brother Gwin's position is simply a race-to-repudiation. Jesus emphasized the cause for putting away. Joel's position allows the putting-away procedure to take precedence over the putting-away cause. It places the innocent person's putting-away rights into the hands, and at the mercy of, the treacherous spouse.

   The Bible teaches that two people make vows in the formation of the marriage bond. One person cannot "vow" for the other person any more than he can disavow for the other person! A disavowed person may disavow! A repudiated person may repudiate! And a put-away person may put away! People can repudiate each other! Brethren need to be concerned with WHY the repudiation took place, and not with WHEN it took place.

   Joel attempted to use this chart to put brother Reeves' position in a bad light. Actually, brother Reeves unashamedly affirmed that the scriptural wife of the proposition had the right to put away her fornicator-husband and remarry. Joel denied the woman this right by inserting and insisting upon his own additional proviso to what Jesus taught in Matthew 19:9.

   Brother Gwin's third chart pictures Fred, Jane, Mary and Joe. This chart is designed to prejudice minds against the truth by listing various amounts of time that may pass between Fred's divorcing Jane, and his fornicating with Mary. Here is the chart:

   This chart is faulty, lacking specific information necessary to drawing correct Biblical conclusions. We have to supply them by assumption.

   We assume that Fred put away Jane not for fornication. (It is not stated, so we must assume it). In such a case, brother Reeves does NOT say that it is OK for Jane to marry Joe. Neither Fred nor Jane may remarry, he having put her away not for fornication. And even Joe would commit adultery upon marrying Jane (Matt. 19:9b). This is what Jesus says, indeed! Brother Reeves agrees with Jesus; so does brother Gwin (at this point).

   We must assume that Jane is an innocent, scriptural wife. (It is not stated; maybe she consented to Fred’s divorcing her. But we have to assume that she is an innocent wife who has been unjustly put away. The chart is not explicit). We will proceed from this point under the assumption that she is entirely innocent.

   Fred is married to Jane, but divorces her and later fornicates with Mary. It matters not when it happened, whether soon or late. Jesus put no time-frame on the commission of fornication. Jesus stated fornication to be the CAUSE for which the innocent spouse may repudiate the guilty mate and to remarry. He put no provisos to the three-word declaration: “except for fornication.” After this fornication, Jane then marries Joe. If Jane was unjustly put away, and is the innocent spouse, she now has the cause that Jesus gives to the innocent spouse to repudiate the guilty mate and to remarry. If Joe is eligible for marriage (we are not told by the chart if he is or not), Jane, upon repudiating fornicating Fred, is loosed by God from the marriage bond to Fred, and may marry Joe. Jesus does NOT call this adultery. Only brother Gwin, and those who hold his position, call it adultery!

   The chart emphasizes various amounts of time that might pass between Fred's divorcing Jane and his fornicating with Mary. Brother Gwin and others have discovered that the more years they can squeeze in between the ungodly mate's divorce actions and his committing fornication, the easier it is to prejudice people's minds against the truth. They like to start out with a little, then move up to vast periods of time. The more time they squeeze in, the more effective their argument is likely to be with some people. Now remember, brother Gwin's position would allow Jane to put Fred away for fornication only if she did it before he had time to reject her. Brother Gwin, what if Fred put Jane away in order to pursue sexual relations with Mary? What if we changed the "one day," of your chart, to one second, "one week" to one minute, and "one month" to one hour? Most people are able to see our point when we frame the scenario this way. What if Fred took your view of a race-to-repudiation, and cruelly and deliberately waited to have sex with Mary until one second after the divorce with Jane was over? Limiting ourselves to purely biblical langauge, what if Fred "departed" (chorizo) from Jane, telling her that he wants nothing more to do with her (apoluo), and went immediately and had sex with another? Will Joel continue to argue that Jane has no putting-away rights? What if Fred committed his fornication with Mary, and then put Jane away? Even though Fred had committed fornication against her, Jane is no less a repudiated woman! Will brother Gwin say she has the right to put Fred away and marry another?

   Mark 10:11 contains the key to answering this scenario. Jesus said, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her." The scenario is clear:

   Jesus did not legislate or limit the amount of time that may pass before a departed man's adultery ceases to be "against" his bound mate. Joel Gwin argues that the departed man's adultery has no impact on the innocent mate. His doctrine teaches that the subsequent adultery is of no consequence. Jesus said the subsequent adultery continues to be against the innocent mate.

   Our next study shall examine charts 4-6.

Introduction | Part Two of the Series

Home Page