In the next chart of brother Gwin's, points 1, 2, and 4 are right, point 3 is patently wrong, and point 5 is ambiguous:

    If one truly wants to know what the Biblical characteristics of “putting away” are, he goes to the BIBLE and studies the passages where appears the Greek word, Apoluo, translated in some English versions as, “put away.” This brother Gwin’s chart does not propose to do, but rather it sets forth what he considers the characteristics to be. Let’s consider them one by one.

   1. “Putting away is an action.” Since Apoluo is a verb of action, the translation must represent the same. So, yes, putting-away is an action! Therefore, by using this chart in the Gwin-Reeves debate, advertised by brother Gwin as a debate on so-called “Mental Divorce,” brother Gwin presents brother Reeves as a mental-divorcer. This is a false representation. Brother Reeves does not believe that putting-away is solely and merely a thought process, or idea that passes through the mind. He believes it is something that the person does! One of the 10 questions that brother Reeves put to brother Gwin (which he did not answer during the debate as expected) was this one: “When you use the phrase, “mental divorce,” as in the advertisement that you prepared for the public, do you mean a mere thought process, or some overt action taking place? His answer was this: “When I use the phrase "mental divorce" I do so only as a means of identifying the position that various brethren have espoused, such as Weldon Warnock in this quote: ….” As one can see, he evaded the question. Brother Reeves asked him do you mean, asking for a definition, and he did not give his definition, but rather switched terms on him, saying, as a means, that is, as a method. Definition is not method! What brother Gwin teaches is that by the term “mental divorce” he means a divorce that one executes only in his mind. This does not represent brother Reeves, nor a host of other brethren, at all! But, who cares? The misrepresentation must go on!

   Mr. Thayer in his famous lexicon defines Apoluo as meaning, among other senses in which the word appears in the New Testament, repudiate. Repudiate means to reject. This is action! Just check your dictionary.

   2. “Putting away is a unilateral action.” This is correct, just like vowing is a unilateral action. In marrying, two persons unilaterally make their vows. One can’t vow for both! In putting-away, or repudiating, a mate, the spouse unilaterally disavows his commitments to the mate. Both parties, as they vowed, can now disavow. Each one can reject his promises to the other, and this is what he does (action) when he conveys to the other his rejection. One can’t disavow for both; he can reject only for himself. If one does it, and then so does the other, that represents two puttings-away, but not a “second putting-away” on the part of either one. Each one puts away one time only, and God approves, if of any, only the one made by the innocent spouse who puts away for fornication!

   3. “There can be only one putting (a)way in any relationship.” Who said so? Brother Gwin said so! Where do we read that in the Scriptures? Nowhere! (And brother Gwin wants to accuse brother Reeves of arguing from the silence of the Scriptures! The pot is calling the kettle black!) This statement of brother Gwin’s is simply an ipse dixit of his; he pulled it out of the blue. Brother Gwin, can there being only one vowing in a marriage relationship? Are two married when just one vows?

   The reason our brother makes his assumptive argument is because he wants to empower the ungodly spouse, who unlawfully puts away his mate, with the right to deprive her of any action, should he later commit adultery. Brother Gwin gives to the ungodly spouse the power to annul a God-given right for an innocent one to put away a fornicator-mate and to remarry. So, once that fellow does his ungodly deed, everything is stopped in its tracts, even God! Everything is stymied, blocked, checked! Forget about God’s divine permission, for look at what that sinner did! “But, what if after the ungodly deed fornication is committed?” Forget it; it is totally irrelevant and inconsequential! Fornication is terrible before, but after the ungodly deed, it means absolutely nothing! Throw it out the window!

   4."Sinful putting away is real.” Brother Gwin, what did this point on your chart have to do with the debate? Brother Gwin asked brother Reeves before the debate if he believes that sinful putting-away is real, and he said YES! “Well, the chart was already prepared and there wasn’t time to make another one,” one might suggest. Fine; all brother Gwin had to do was to tell the audience to ignore that particular point, since it had no bearing on his debate with brother Reeves! But, no; the misrepresentation must go on. He used the chart and read this point # 4.

   5. “The one who is put away commits adultery if they remarry.” Which one, brother Gwin? The one in the scenario that Jesus treats? If yes, you are right and we are in perfect agreement! Or, are you talking about a different put-away person, about the one in your proposition? The put-away person in your proposition had fornication committed against her, but the one in Jesus’ case did not. Do you see the difference? Others can! You have confused two different scenarios on purpose. You have taken a phrase out of a sentence of Jesus’ context, and applied it to an entirely different context.

   Actually, the Bible text says that whosoever, and he that, commits adultery; it does not say, “the one who is put away commits adultery.” (This can be learned only by inference). But, brother Gwin can’t see anything in these texts of Jesus, in Matthew and Luke, except “the put-away woman!” He can’t let it stand as Jesus stated the case. Jesus said, whosoever (a husband, a man) and he that (another man), but brother Gwin ignores all that Jesus emphasizes and has Jesus directing his remarks solely to a woman, the wife who is unjustly put-away, telling her what she may not do. And this is rightly dividing the word of truth?

   This completes part twenty-two of our study. Please check the next article in the series.

Introduction | Part Twenty-One of the Series | Part Twenty-Three of the Series

Home Page