Prior to the Reeves/Gwin debate, considerable effort was made to arrive at an acceptable affirmative proposition for brother Reeves. We thought we had a good one when we proposed to brother Gwin that he deny the proposition that brother Gwin quoted at the top of this chart:

   As brother Gwin explains on this chart, he had reasons for refusing to deny the proposition. It would be unnecessary for us to review this chart had brother Gwin objected to it for reasons of doctrine and scruples. However, these were not the reasons he gave.

   1. Unlike the debate, our present teaching format does not limit brother Reeves as to what he "affirms." Let the reader clearly understand that the proposition as worded by brother Reeves (at the top of this chart) accurately declares the teaching of Jesus as implied by what he said in Matthew 19:9a. As Jesus put no time-restraints when the fornication had to be committed, neither does brother Reeves’ proposition. It simply says, “When fornication occurs.” It should be noted also that as Jesus put no provisos to his statement in Matthew 19:9a, of “pre” or “post” or “prior” or “subsequent” anything, neither does brother Reeves’ proposition. None are needed nor fit in Jesus’ statement. Fornication is the sole cause that Jesus gives for the right of repudiation and remarriage; this the proposition clearly states.

   2. Brother Gwin’s chart says, “Surely you know that this is an inadequate statement of your position in regards to our differences.” No, brother Reeves knows no such thing! His proposition says, “When fornication occurs,” and that phrase allows of no exceptions of “pre” or “post” anything. It allows of no provisos to what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9a. Brother Reeves’ proposition most certainly and adequately states the difference between what he believes and the belief of brother Gwin that demands that a proviso must be inserted in Jesus’ statement in order for it to be true! According to him and his associates, Jesus allows the innocent spouse to repudiate a fornicator-mate and to remarry ONLY IF the innocent spouse was not previously put-way by an unjust mate.

   3. Brother Gwin said he rejected the proposition because it said nothing about a "second" putting-away. Of course the proposition says nothing about a “second” putting away (nor a thousand other extraneous things). Brother Reeves does not teach a "second" putting-away by anyone! (As we have expressed many times before in this series, who was brother Joel debating?) Brother Reeves did not affirm a "second" putting-away because there is only ONE putting-away that God approves. For example, suppose a man were to put away his wife because she burned the cookies. Then, after being unlawfully put away, she married another man. Could her original husband now "lawfully" put her away and marry another? Jesus says NO! Matthew 5:32 teaches that the putting-away man was guilty of sin when he put his wife away for an unlawful cause. The putting-away that God approves is the one done by the innocent spouse to the guilty mate who has committed fornication. Brother Gwin’s so-called “second putting-away” is concocted from an entirely different scenario than the one Jesus treated. It is based on events in the scenario described by his proposition in the debate. The affirmative is not obligated to put his opponent’s “argument” in his affirmative proposition!

   4. Brother Reeves’ proposition DOES “explain (his) belief that an innocent ‘put away’ person … can ‘put away’ a guilty spouse subsequent to the initial action of that guilty spouse.” Jesus did not grant his permission to repudiate for the cause of fornication, and to remarry, conditioned on anything except the cause of fornication. Brother Gwin adds the proviso (“subsequent to the initial action of that guilty spouse”) to the divine permission, not Jesus! This is perhaps the most telling facet of brother Gwin's objection to the above affirmative. Brother Reeves' proposition parallels Matthew 19:9a. Brother Gwin did not want to deny it because it did not incorporate a rejection of his proviso about the innocent's action being taken after "the initial action of the guilty party." Yes, brother Reeves could have affirmed a negative, but he didn't. And the fact remains that Joel Gwin rejected this proposition because it was not written to incorporate his proviso! This, dear reader, it quite significant!

   5. Brother Gwin’s thoughtfulness, expressed in his last sentence on the chart, is appreciated, but brother Reeves had already given much thought to the wording of his proposition that accurately declares the teaching of Jesus as implied by what he said in Matthew 19:9a. This teaching brother Gwin denies, because he believes it ONLY with his proviso attached! Just as the Judaizers “believed’ the gospel, provided circumcision was added to it, so brother Gwin believes what Jesus implies in Mt. 19:9 provided his “proviso” is added to it. Brother Gwin's proviso is “that there was no prior putting-away of the innocent one.” Just as Paul argued that the Judaizer's teaching resulted in “another (or, different) gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4), so brother Gwin's teaching results in a different teaching!

   6. Brother Gwin actually can deny brother Reeves proposition (in spite of his claim to believe it!) because it does not add the proviso: “provided the fornication occurs BEFORE and not AFTER an unlawful putting away has occurred.” In correspondence between him and brother Reeves, he wrote concerning the proposition: “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 put away the fornicating mate to whom he has been bound by God, and to remarry.”

   It may be a slip of the pen, but brother Gwin’s statement, “Even if ….” is saying that he denies that an innocent spouse can ever put away his fornicator-mate, “even if” the innocent mate was previously divorced by the guilty mate! We think that he meant to say, leaving out the word “even,” “if the innocent spouse was previously divorced by the guilty mate.” So he affirms that the innocent may divorce the fornicator if he, the innocent one, was not previously divorced by the now fornicating mate, or he denies that the innocent spouse may divorce the guilty mate if he, the innocent spouse, was previously and unlawfully divorced by the guilty mate.

   7. Brother Gwin claims that he believes the proposition as worded by brother Reeves, but he doesn’t. Could the Judaizers have claimed to believe what Paul affirmed as being the gospel? No, because Paul did not add their circumcision proviso to the gospel. Brother Gwin claims to believe brother Reeves’ (proposed affirmative) proposition, but in reality he doesn’t because it does not add his (Gwin’s) proviso to it!

   8. Yes, brother Gwin could deny brother Reeves’ proposition, because it states “when fornication occurs,” but without his proviso, but he refused to do so. He refused to deny the proposition because the proposition too accurately declares what Jesus taught! He denies what Jesus taught exactly like the Judaizers denied the gospel by preaching a different gospel. The Judaizers added circumcision to the gospel of Christ, and brother Gwin adds to Christ’s teaching his proviso of no divorce prior to the commission of fornication.

   This completes part ten of our study. Please check the next article in the series.

Introduction | Part Nine of the Series | Part Eleven of the Series

Home Page