This chart apparently has an imaginary opponent. The opponent certainly is not brother Reeves! Brother Gwin's phantom opponent allegedly denies that a put-away person is really put away unless he is put away "for fornication." That phantom opponent may well take that position, and there may be others in the brotherhood who do, but brother Reeves teaches that a person is really put away as a result of his mate's rejection of him. A rejection is a rejection, no matter what the cause! And a "putting-away" is a "putting-away!" The real question is whether or not God approves of the putting-away! Brother Gwin teaches that there is something about a godless person's unlawful "divorce" actions that forever nullify the innocent spouse's ability to avail himself of a God-given liberty: i.e., his right to repudiate his fornicator-mate and marry another! He places the put-away woman in an inescapable "box" (below) based upon nothing more than her husbands ungodly, divinely unapproved actions! Here is the chart:

   1. First it is affirmed by the chart that we all agree that when a spouse divorces his mate for fornication, that at some point the guilty fornicator becomes a “put away” person, and that the marriage is dissolved. Note several points here:

   2. We are asked by the chart if there is a difference in that noted above and a case in which the “divorce” is NOT for fornication, in that the same action results in the innocent mate becoming a “put away” person. However, there is one little difference between the two parts of the chart: the last two lines have question marks following it, whereas above it does not! So, we take note of a thing or two here:

   3. The chart, if it has a point, suggests that some affirm that there is a difference, that in the second part, the marriage is not dissolved. Well, Brother Reeves is not among those!

   4. This chart, however, does not touch the issue of the proposition debated by brother Gwin and brother Reeves. In this chart, its first part was no part of the debate. Both disputants agree that a spouse put away for fornication has no right to remarry. In this chart the second part does not touch the issue of the proposition that brother Gwin defended, because this “innocent mate” did not have fornication committed against her! In brother Gwin's debate proposition the innocent woman did have fornication committed against her! But brother Gwin and his associates must take this particular put-away person that Jesus and this second part of the chart talk about, and inject her into the proposition that talks about a different person: one who has had fornication committed against her! This is the subtlety, or sophistry, that was employed throughout the debate. This is why we claim that a switching of scenarios is employed.

   5. To answer our brother’s question: There is no difference between the two parts of the chart in that at some point one becomes a divorced, or put-away, person (whatever those terms might mean), nor any difference in that the divorce or putting-away results in the marriage becoming dissolved. The difference consists in that in the second part there is a NOT for fornication divorce or putting-away, but in brother Gwin’s proposition there is a “then commits fornication”! We will not let brother Gwin get away with this switching of scenarios!

   Please consider the next chart:

   Brother Reeves, seeing that brother Gwin’s argumentation was restricting every put-away woman from any action on her own part to repudiate, or put-away, simply because she was of a contrived category of persons, introduced the analogy of a box. A box is a container, the dictionary tells us, and brother Gwin had the put-away woman contained, restricted, enclosed, or limited in movement, and so the simple word “box” fit the described case of the put-away woman per brother Gwin’s argumentation.

   Was this analogy chosen as an appeal to emotions on brother Reeves’ part, as some are now charging? Was brother Reeves insinuating that the boxed-in woman should be released on the basis of pity for her being in a box? Absolutely not! The analogy was used simply to convey the idea of containment.

   If brother Reeves was appealing to emotions in using the analogy, to what was brother Gwin appealing when he prepared this chart, using with approval this analogy and claiming that Jesus is the one who does the putting “in that BOX?” Without the box, where would Jesus put them? Brother Gwin in no way objects to the box; he simply wants it understood that it is Jesus who is putting “her in that BOX.” What some brethren won’t charge in order to make his opponent look bad! It is a carnal tactic and a tacit admission that he can’t answer his opponent’s argument. How sad that otherwise good brethren stoop to such. One brother, in reference to brother Reeves’ use of the “box,” has written: “This only furthered the emotional argument, using prejudicial images to plead for the unfairness of the position.”

   Now to some observations about the chart:

   1. Jesus put her in that box, indeed (by implication). Jesus also put her husband in the same box (same passages)! Why didn’t brother Gwin mention that? Why did he “stress” only the “b” part of the three verses, and “ignore” (see his chart # 46) the “a” part of them? Neither may remarry, since he put her away not for fornication. Furthermore (look at the “whosoever” of the three passages that brother Gwin presents), Jesus put in his box the man who marries the put-away woman. That is the point that Jesus is making in the “b” part of these three passages! Brother Gwin has the wrong words underscored. Jesus is specifically saying that the ones who commit adultery are two MEN (not a woman), the two “whosoevers.” One man is the husband who puts away his wife for any cause, except fornication, and the other man is he who marries such a put-away woman. Bro. Gwin cites the passages and then ignores the very point that Jesus is making. Such misuse of Scripture!

   2. Brother Gwin makes the box air-tight, hermeneutically sealed, an “absolute” (see chart # 49, ABSOLUTE OR NOT ABSOLUTE?) for the wife, but not for the husband (see the same chart!). Brother Gwin makes Jesus a respecter of persons. He lets the man out of the box, but not the woman! She goes in and stays. But, does she? Let’s see.

   Brother Gwin lets the husband out because of a “qualifier,” but he has some “qualifiers” also for the put-away woman. He opens the air-tight, “absolute” box and lets the put-away woman OUT, after she has been put in it, if:

   4. So he gives up his “put-away woman in a box” argument. He gives up his “absolute Lk. 16:18b” argument. He needs to learn the meaning of “absolute!”

   5. He may make exceptions to his “absolute” argument, but he absolutely will not let others do the same. The “put-away woman in a box” who, after she is put in the box, has adultery committed against her (Mk. 10:11), now having the one cause that Jesus gives the innocent spouse for putting away and remarrying, may NOT come out of the box. Who says so? Joel Gwin and associates! Why? Because they have a scruple and will divide the brotherhood over it if others don’t agree. They are concerned with category, not cause!

   6. Jesus put her husband and the second man in that box (and her, by implication), because the putting-away was not for fornication (the “a” part of those three passages), and he takes her out if the husband gives her the cause that permits an innocent spouse to repudiate and remarry. That cause is fornication (Mt. 19:9a)!

   7. Brother Gwin perverts the three passages that he cites. He gives just the second-half of the passages, and misrepresents those halves. His chart is shot full of fallacies. Such is the sophistry of charts that are misused.

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

Introduction | Part Twenty-Six of the Series | Part Twenty-Eight of the Series

Home Page