These three charts differ only in that they reference three different passages on the general subject of marriage, putting-away and remarriage. We shall list all three in order, then make some comments:

   The title is the same for all three, and as to the title, as we said concerning the previous chart, “all this is no issue at all between brother Gwin and brother Reeves.” Of course it is possible for an ungodly spouse to do any ungodly act that he might chose to do! Who would deny that? Has brother Reeves ever written anything, or are there witnesses to brother Reeves’ having said anything, that contends that it is NOT possible to put away an innocent spouse? Of course not! Just whom is brother Gwin debating (with these charts)? Not brother Reeves!

   These are three of brother Gwin’s generic charts, these three designed to prove that an innocent spouse who has been put away is really put away! Brother Reeves never has denied that, nor does he deny it. Brother Gwin asked brother Reeves specifically if he believes that when one is put away, he is really put away, and brother Reeves answered, Yes. Brother Gwin even displayed to the audience a chart generated to show brother Gwin’s question and brother Reeves’ answer! In spite of all this, the charts kept coming on, arguing that, in reference to the put-away, innocent spouse, “Jesus said that she WAS put away.” A good number of brother Gwin’s charts weren’t prepared for a debate with brother Reeves, but rather to simply get before the audience as much of his doctrine as possible in two short nights. This became more and more conspicuous to the audience as the debate continued.

   In spite of brother Reeves’ clear answer to the question, brother Gwin continued to argue that brother Reeves “wants it both ways!” Brother Reeves called it to his attention, but to no avail. Did brother Gwin consider brother Reeves’ answer to be a lie? Did he refuse to believe him? If he believed him, why did he persist in showing his generic charts that would misrepresent brother Reeves? The afore-prepared charts just had to be displayed and promoted, regardless! And this is honesty? This commends brother Gwin’s character? But, this is what happened in the debate. Many in the audience were wondering why brother Gwin kept on displaying charts accusing brother Reeves of “wanting it both ways,” when brother Reeves had told brother Gwin that put-away really means put-away! That’s just one way!

   Reviews of the debate are promoting the same misrepresentation: Brother Reeves is admitted as saying “yes” to the question (Does put-away really mean put-away? does divorce really mean divorce?), but then at the same time he is charged with saying that the divorced are just spoken of as be­ing divorced. The lie continues to the shame of those perpetuating it.

   We might notice also, concerning these three charts, that not only “the original wife was innocent of fornication,” as brother Gwin states on the chart, but so was the original husband! No cause of fornication was in evidence in the putting-away of the original wife by the ungodly husband. This is precisely why neither one was permitted to remarry, nor was the other man permitted to marry her! Brother Gwin, stick with the context! But no, all that he knows, thinks or breathes is the "status" put-away woman!

   Brother Gwin’s final point on these three charts is this: “AND He said…” So, Jesus not only said that the original wife WAS put away (on which brother Gwin and brother Reeves agree, in spite of brother Gwin’s refusal to accept it), but Jesus also said that whosoever shall marry the put-away wife commits adultery. On this the two brethren also agree, but for different reasons! Brother Reeves affirms that the reason is that the man marrying this particular put-away woman would be marrying someone else’s wife, because, she being put away not for fornication, had not been released from her marriage vows by God so as to be free for remarriage! Brother Gwin’s reason is that “she is a put-away woman,” period! Jesus talked about the cause; Brother Gwin talks about a category of persons. Keep in mind, dear reader, that the issue between these two debaters was cause versus category!

   Note that the final two lines of each of the three charts differ in wording (not in content) because of the different wording of the three passages per the KJV that brother Gwin is using. In Luke 16:18 and in Mt. 19:9 the KJV uses the English phrase, “put away” to translate the Greek word, Apoluo. But in Mt. 5:32, the KJV, for some reason unknown to us, translates the Greek word, Apoluo, appearing twice in this verse, once, “put away,” and once, “divorced.” The same Greek word, Apoluo, appears repeatedly in all three passages. So, what does “divorce” mean, per the KJV in Mt. 5:32b? The same as “put away.” And what does “put away” translate? The Greek word, Apoluo. And what does Apoluo mean? Thayer tells us that it means, among other words, “repudiate.” And what does “repudiate” mean? Webster tells us, “reject”! Keep this in mind as you see the word “divorce” used in this controversy.

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

Introduction | Part Eighteen of the Series | Part Twenty of the Series

Home Page