Consider the next chart:

   1. Brother Gwin diagrams the marriage bond using the traditional marriage triangle. Perhaps it is effective in emphasizing some aspects of the marriage bond, however it does contain some inaccuracies and inadequacies. These inaccuracies are also seen in charts 28, 29, 31, and 32. Actually, marriage vows do not bind married people to God: God binds people to their marriage vows! A study of biblical divorce is therefore a study of what God binds or looses. Brother Gwin agrees that Romans 7:3 teaches that God looses one from his marital obligations upon the death of his mate. However, he disagrees with the unconditional statement that God looses the innocent person from his marital obligations on the basis of his repudiation of a fornicator-mate. Brother Gwin conditions the innocent person's right of remarriage upon whether or not he was the first-to-repudiate. Brother Gwin's position, and that of his associates, prohibits God from loosing the innocent from his marriage promises on the basis that his ungodly spouse beat him to putting-away! Their position forces God to recognize the unlawful putting-away to the extent that He is unable to recognize a lawful putting-away! Though it may be a source of pride for some men to feel that they can so banish a God-given right, in reality it is impossible to do. Too, what would be wrong with a man that would make him want to deprive an innocent party of his God-given right? I don't guess I understand such a need.

   2. Again, better would be the wording of the title as given in the previous review. That is, "For what cause will God release a spouse from the marriage bond, and permit him to remarry?"

   3. Besides death, the cause of fornication grants the innocent spouse the right to exercise the divine right implied by Jesus in Matthew 19:9a, and when the spouse repudiates the fornicator-mate, God releases him from the marriage bond, and he may remarry.

   4. If the man puts away the woman for fornication, not only is the word “married” "Xed"-out (crossed out), but also his being bound to her. So, the bottom, double-headed arrow should be two single-headed arrows: one Xed-out (crossed out) from the man to the woman, and one still standing from the woman to the man. She is still bound by God to her marriage vows to him, but not he. He is no longer her husband. So, he marries another woman with God’s approval.

   Let us consider the next chart:

   1. What brother Reeves wants is for all of us to respect the only two reasons for which God will release a spouse for remarriage: death and fornication. The issue is not not a third way “to break the bond,” but is respect for the two causes that God gives for a spouse to legitimately remarry. Brother Gwin admits the two causes (see his previous two charts), but the second one he admits ONLY CONDITIONALLY!

   Brother Reeves teaches, “When fornication occurs.” Brother Gwin’s position is that fornication is a divine cause provided that the innocent spouse has not been previously divorced! He puts his proviso to Jesus’ cause. Instead of brother Reeves having a “third way to break the bond,” brother Gwin has only a way and a half: death, and fornication maybe/sometimes!

   2. For brother Gwin, fornication is totally irrelevant if it occurs after an ungodly spouse unlawfully puts away his innocent mate. Why? His ipse dixit! Since when does ungodly action nullify or negate and supercede divine legislation? Brother Gwin in the debate said that the issue doesn’t have to do with human acts negating divine permission, but his position demands that conclusion. If an ungodly spouse puts away his innocent mate for just any cause, this being against God’s law and not approved by him, and this action absolutely stymies the exercise of a divine permission, does it not follow that that unrighteous act supercedes a divine right, the right to repudiate for fornication? Simply denying the fact, doesn’t negate the fact! A man’s denying the reality of sin, does not make sin not real.

   3. This chart is a hodgepodge of different scenarios. Such is the only way that brother Gwin and his associates can make a semblance of a case for their position! They always confuse scenarios.

   4. If a man puts away his wife “NOT for fornication,” and marries again, Mk.10:11 tells us that he commits adultery against his wife! Now she has the second of the two causes: fornication. The chart tells that “Bro. Reeves says this releases the bond but the Scriptures do not.” This what? No, brother Reeves doesn’t say that. He says that God, when the cause of fornication obtains, releases the innocent spouse from the marriage bond, permitting him to repudiate the guilty mate and to remarry. This is what the Scriptures say, by implication in Matthew 19:9a. Brother Gwin is not content to leave the matter where the Scriptures leave it. He agrees only if his proviso is intact! He only half-way agrees!

   5. Brother Reeves does not call adultery what Jesus permits. It is brother Gwin who calls adultery what Jesus permits if there was an ungodly putting-away before the fornication was committed. Jesus hinges the matter on the cause of fornication; Brother Gwin hinges the matter of the fornication’s being a prior or a subsequent something! What Jesus calls OK, brother Gwin is calling adultery, and is dividing the brotherhood over it!

   6. Fornication and unlawful second marriages don’t break the marriage bond, nor release it! Only God controls the marriage bond. Brother Gwin misrepresents brother Reeves when he puts on his chart: “Brother Reeves says that this releases the bond.” “This” has to refer to the man’s ungodly action toward his wife, and his subsequent marriage to another woman. Such does not release the marriage bond. God stipulates one cause: fornication (Mt. 19:9a). When that cause obtains, God grants a permission, that if exercised will result in God’s releasing the innocent spouse from his commitments, vow, promises made when he married the now fornicator-mate.

   7. Again we note that brother Gwin uses the word “repudiate” in quotation marks. Why didn’t he put the words “puts (her) away” (at the bottom of chart) in quotation marks, if he uses the terms interchangeably? He evidently is not comfortable with a word that Thayer in his lexicon uses to define in English the Greek word Apoluo. The phrase “put away” has a better ring to it, in brother Gwin’s position, than “repudiate” that obviously indicates action of rejection!

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

Introduction | Part Sixteen of the Series | Part Eighteen of the Series

Home Page