This next chart is a rework of chart #3. Brother Gwin used pictures of men and women to depict various divorce and remarriage scenarios. Brother Gwin accurately states that brother Reeves would not allow "put-away" Jane to marry Joe, because no fornication had been committed by her husband, who put her away. However, he prejudicially adds some comments about "fairness." We will not here spend much time discussing the "fairness" issue, for we have discussed it before. We do wish to remind the reader that brother Reeves does not base his position on the potential fairness or unfairness of any divorce situation. He bases his position upon the unadulterated teaching of Jesus, in Matthew 19:9: An innocent spouse has the God-given right to put-away his fornicator-mate and marry another. Since brother Gwin disagrees with this teaching, in cases where the fornicator has already taken some unlawful divorce action against the innocent party, and since brother Reeves has never made any appeal to "fairness," as a basis of his position, brother Gwin should have spent more time trying to uproot brother Reeves' actual arguments, and less time talking about "fairness." Please consider the chart:

   This chart is another of several whose implication misrepresents brother Reeves. As one sees the chart he will think that brother Reeves admits that Jane may not remarry, but that his doctrine will permit her to remarry since it is just not fair, it’s too hard, it’s unjust, it’s legalistic, and it’s too literal!

   1. Of course Jane can (a little point of grammar here) remarry, but brother Reeves agrees that Jane may not remarry with God’s approval. The issue, which brother Gwin ignored throughout the debate, is the reason why she is not permitted by God to remarry. She may not remarry, nor may Fred (brother Gwin in not concerned about anyone but a “put-away woman!”), and for the same reason: there was not cause of fornication for the putting-away! Since Jane was not put away for fornication, she does not have the sole cause that Jesus gives for repudiating and remarrying (and neither does Fred! Brother Gwin, don’t forget about Fred, the “putting-away man”). And reader friend, don’t forget that if no “put-away woman” may remarry with God’s approval, then no “putting-away man” may remarry! Remember this as brother Gwin and associates herald loud and long that the “put-away woman is prohibited from remarrying”, and as they make an absolute out of Lk. 16:18b. By the same illogic they will have to make 16:18a an absolute, but they don’t!

   2. Brother Gwin’s five questions in the red box have no bearing at all on the issue. Jesus gives the cause for putting away and remarrying, and that is all that matters. That someone might think it too hard, unfair, unjust, etc. doesn’t change Jesus’ sole cause for repudiation and remarriage. The will of God is good, acceptable and perfect (Rom. 12:2).

   3. The difference between brother Reeves’ position and that of brother Gwin’s is that the first one says that Jane may not remarry because she does not have the Scriptural cause, and the other one says that she may not remarry because she is of a certain category of women called “put-away women.” We remind our erring brother Gwin that the issue is cause, not category!

    One looks at this chart and wonders: Is the pot calling the kettle black? Those who heard/hear the debate (whether in person or by recording) know that brother Gwin hardly mentioned the cause of fornication, but constantly plied the listener with his “put-away woman.” (He did talk about fornication not being consequential, if committed after an unlawful putting away). As to “stressing one aspect” and “ignoring another,” brother Gwin, thou art the man, for you certainly ignored the sole cause for putting away and remarrying, which is fornication, and stressed what all “put-away women” may not do.

   1. Brother Reeves doesn’t “stress” anything, nor “ignore” anything! Jesus answered the Pharisees’ question, giving the sole cause for putting-away a wife, and he tells us that if one should put away his wife for every cause (except fornication), and should remarry, the result would be adultery. He adds that the same would result for the man who would marry such a put-away wife!

   2. Brother Gwin actually ignores what is on the left side of his chart; that is, “The right to put away your spouse for fornication.” He invariably stresses what is on the right side of his chart, several of his charts presenting only the “b” part of Mt. 5:32; 19:9 and Lk. 16:18 (see charts 10, 36, 48). Now, who is stressing, ignoring and excluding?

   3. His red box on the right side of the chart is his absolute box for “put-away” women. But remember that the put-away woman of Jesus’ scenario is only a woman put away not for fornication!

   4. Since brother Gwin speaks of brother Reeves’ “exclusion,” why does he exclude from his red box “those who are PUTTING away?” Jesus gave “the subsequent, divinely-imposed consequences” for BOTH (Mt. 19:9; Lk. 16:18)! Is brother Gwin stressing and ignoring something? Consider the previous chart and how he ignores the reason given by Jesus why Jane may not remarry. Ignoring this, his position stresses the reason as Jane’s being in the box labeled: “put-away women.” Our brother, with this chart of his, is condemning himself!

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

Introduction | Part Twenty-Five of the Series | Part Twenty-Seven of the Series

Home Page