Like Chart 25, this next chart makes brother Gwin and/or his chart preparers and coaches guilty of gross and ungodly misrepresenation! It accuses brother Reeves of denying the reality of the unscriptural putting-away in Matthew 5:32. It also accuses brother Reeves of teaching a "2nd" putting-away. Who on earth did he prepare these charts for? There is absolutely no source material on which to build this chart and attribute to brother Reeves what he did not believe or teach! There may be some out there who deny the reality of the unlawful putting-away action in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, and who teach a "second" putting-away, but it is not Bill Reeves or Tim Haile!

   1. The same thing said in rebuttal to the previous chart, obtains here. This chart is a continuation of the misrepresentation of brother Reeves. Ample opportunity was given to brother Gwin to make correction during the debate, but he said not a word concerning the matter, but left his charts intact. No explanation nor withdrawal of the error was made, not in the least. This is disappointing, and brother Gwin’s character suffers as a result. We all make mistakes, but the humble correct them.

   2. Brother Gwin, in this infamous chart, has brother Reeves “reading into the text” what brother Gwin has never heard brother Reeves say verbally nor in writing. The chart must have been prepared on a hunch. The very first question of ten that he put to brother Reeves before the debate began was on this matter, and brother Reeves told him that “Yes she is really put away.” In spite of this, he has him contradicting God! And this is brotherly love? Does the Truth need defending with such carnal tactics? “Well, this was slip on his part.” Fine, then why did he not correct it when brother Reeves called it to his attention? It still isn’t too late for brother Gwin to make correction, for at this writing he is still alive, and we urge him to make this right for his soul’s sake.

   3. He further misrepresents brother Reeves’ “wants.” Since he is not God, how does he know what brother Reeves wants except as brother Reeves tells him? (One may attribute a conclusion to a man’s doctrine, but he can’t tell others what the man “wants!”). “Well, that’s what he meant by that phraseology.” Is it? Why, then did not his experienced father and other advisors correct him on the matter. No, it was all left as presented!

   Of course what brother Gwin says that brother Reeves wants to “read into” this verse is not found textually or verbatim in Mt. 5:32, nor anywhere else in the New Testament. Neither is his proposition “in the text” or in any other! (Anyone can create a statement for his opponent and then claim that his opponent can’t find those very words in a particular text! That tactic is as old as the hills). Brother Reeves has never affirmed anything about a subsequent repudiation or a so-called “second putting-away.” That’s just brother Gwin’s lingo. Brother Reeves has never used Matthew 5:32 to prove that the innocent spouse who has the cause of fornication against his guilty mate may repudiate him and marry again. He uses Matthew 19:9a. Mt. 5:32 says nothing about the husband marrying again! Along with being guilty of gross misrepresentation of brother Reeves, brother Gwin is guilty of gross misrepresentation of a biblical text!

   Notice that brother Gwin has the verb “repudiate” in quotation marks. For what purpose? He had just said, “putting away; “ why didn’t he say, “a subsequent putting-away?” He’s not comfortable with that word “repudiate;” it doesn’t conjure up ideas of courthouses, lawyers and judges. It doesn't help him in his effort to label us as "mental divorcers." "Repudiate" sounds like a verb of action that could mean more than simply putting space (“put away”) between the husband and the wife. And, indeed it does! It means to reject, and Thayer gives “repudiation” as a definition of the Greek word, Apoluo.

   4. Concerning the wife of the context of Matthew 5:32, brother Reeves does not say that “she would NOT commit adultery if she remarried.” This is a lie, as to what brother Reeves wants to say. That wife of the context was put away not for the cause of fornication. That is why she (and the man who would marry her -- and this is Jesus’ point) would commit adultery upon remarrying. But brother Gwin has switched scenarios on us, and we are not supposed to catch it! He has injected the cause of fornication. Do you see it? “…if her husband committed fornication.” This these errorists do continually: switch scenarios, citing passages (or parts of them) that address a particular scenario, and then interject conditions of an entirely different scenario. Some of our brethren are beginning to see this sophistry and turn from this error. How do we know that? They have told us so!

   5. The false teacher is always guilty of the very thing of which he accuses his opponent! Never forget this fact (that too many have not yet learned). Brother Gwin accuses brother Reeves of “reading into the text.” Let’s see who “reads into the text.” His position admits the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 5:32, that “whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery,” but he would add, provided that her putting-away husband doesn’t later die, because should he die, “she would NOT commit adultery if she remarried.” This is his absolute law with an exception! Now, who “reads into the text?” So, we see that he and his associates play by two sets of rules. He may find an exception, and read it into the text, but I may not read in the divine permission of Matthew 19:9, should this innocent, put-away woman have fornication committed against her (Mark 10:11). Brother Gwin and others have no problem allowing an innocent put-away person to marry another if his mate subsequently dies. They concede this as a divine permission established on the principle stated in Romans 7:2-3. However, they will not allow the innocent put-away person to use the divine allowance of the cause of fornication to put away the fornicator-mate. Do brother Gwin and his associates view themselves as the arbiters of determining remarriage rights? In the absence of any empirical New Testament evidence this is exactly how it appears!

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

Introduction | Part Fourteen of the Series | Part Sixteen of the Series

Home Page