From the beginning of this controversy, some brethren have argued that the second clause in Luke 16:18 (hereafter called "Luke 16:18b"), is an absolute statement. They mean that a "put-away" woman is forbidden remarriage on the sole basis of her being a "put-away woman." If their position is correct, what do they do with the first clause of Luke 16:18? It forbids remarriage for the man doing the putting-away! Is Luke 16:18A also an "absolute" statement? No. Matthew 19:9 teaches that an innocent person may put away his fornicator-mate and remarry without committing adultery. If Luke 16:18A is not an absolute statement, then upon what basis can one demand that Luke 16:18B is an "absolute" statement? Some are just inconsistent! Please consider Joel's chart:

   Chart # 49 purports, or professes, to show that some Bible statements are to be taken in the absolute, and some not. And then application of this observation is pressed in the defense of the proposition of the debate.

   Brother Gwin’s chart on the right-hand side is fallacious principally for the following reason: he does not give in either 16:18a or 16:18b the cause or reason why those two parts are true: the putting-away was not done for the scriptural cause. This pertinent point is excluded from his argumentation.Actually, within the context in which Jesus made the statements, both are absolutely true! Where there is no cause of fornication in the putting-away, neither the husband nor the wife may remarry.This is absolutely true! But brother Gwin can’t afford to state the facts.

   If the two phrases are taken out of context, and made to stand alone, then neither one is an absolute. Brother Gwin wants to take part “a” out of context, thus not making it an absolute, and find a “qualifier” for it, but then leave part “b” in context and quote its language to apply it to an entirely different scenario, one in which the cause of fornication is in evidence! Herein lies the trickery of this chart. He is arbitrary as respects the “absolute” and “not absolute” treatments of the two parts. How convenient!

   He has Luke 16:18a not absolute because of “qualifiers”. No, the reason why 16:18a, taken out of context, would not be absolute is because whosoever puts away his wife for fornication is permitted to remarry (a necessary inference drawn from Mt. 19:9a). The second woman, the one whom he would marry, after putting away his fornicator-wife, upon marrying him would not be committing adultery, in spite of his being a “putting-away man,” because he is exercising the divine right or permission and is free to be married to another. The language of 16:18a does not apply here, because the language of 16:18a applies only to the case in which no cause of fornication is in evidence. Brother Gwin, stay with the context!

   The same is paralleled in 16:18b.

   He has 16:18b “Absolute? YES." There are no “qualifiers,” he claims.  No, the reason why 16:18b, taken out of context, would not be absolute is because the unscripturally, put-away wife, whose husband later has committed adultery against her (Mk. 10:11), now has the scriptural cause for repudiation, and is permitted to put away the fornicator-mate and to remarry.  The second man, upon marrying the woman of this scenario, would not be committing adultery, in spite of her being a “put-away woman,” because she is exercising the divine right or permission and is free to be married to another. The language of 16:18b does not apply here, because the language of 16:18b applies only to the case in which no cause of fornication is in evidence.  Brother Gwin, stay with the context!  (But he can’t, and make his warped argument!  He has to apply the language of one scenario, that of 16:18b, and apply it to an entirely different one.  Yet he won’t apply the language of 16:18a to his different scenario.  This is arbitrary!).

   Once the two parts of 16:18 are taken out of context, both have qualifiers; THEY HAVE THE SAME ONE!  If he has the cause of fornication against his wife, or if she has the cause of fornication against her husband (for the two are still husband and wife, right?), either one can exercise the divine right.  Joel’s sophistry consists in his not holding the exact wording of 16:18a to the new scenario for the man, but in holding the exact wording of 16:18b to the woman of the new scenario!  This manipulation of the Scriptures is typical of the false teacher.  The discerning reader can see this.

   The same “qualifier” that brother Gwin uses for the man, he must equally use for the woman (the wife).  In answering brother Reeves’ 5^th question put to him before the debate (see our comments toward the end of our review of his chart # 18), he admitted that the wife may put away her husband for fornication.  (Of course, he admits this but with the “qualifier” that she must not have been previously put away, but he doesn’t tack this qualifier on to the husband! The husband can be a “putting-away” man and remarry, but if the woman is a “put-away” woman, she may not!) In the context of Lk. 16:18 neither the putting-away man nor the put-away woman may remarry. But brother Gwin doesn’t agree with Jesus; he lets the man remarry but not the woman. Shall we call this his “argumentum absolutum con exceptioni”?

   The next chart we wish to review contains brother Gwin's question #5 that was sent to brother Reeves one day before the debate, and answered by him that day before the debate.

   This question requests a description in detail of a "how" to do something. It concerns itself, then, with procedure! Brother Gwin and company advocate a particular procedure for ''putting-away," which involves in our country all of the courthouse action that finalizes with the fall of the judge's gavel, and the couple is declared divorced. To them inherent in the Greek word, Apoluo, translated in some versions as "put away," is civil procedure. With this incorrect understanding of "putting away," the querist wants to know how in detail one could possibly put away, since no more civil procedure is possible once the judge has declared the couple divorced! (And they wonder why some of us refer to them as the "civil procedure brethren!")

   1. Brother Reeves answers the question of "how" by simply saying that she does it by doing what Apoluo (put away) in Greek means (in reference to divorce, separation): repudiate, reject, disavow. That is what he did, and that is what now she does. There is no specific procedure outlined by Jesus in doing what this verb of action means, and we need not try to do so.

   2. Note that both took vows earlier, and now both can break them, or disavow. One can't make vows for both and one can't break vows for both. Each does his own vowing and disavowing. The phrase, "put away," translates a Greek word that means more than simply putting physical space between one and another (though that is involved)! (A husband can leave his wife to go to work, but that of course is not "putting her away"). And this Greek word does not have legal divorce, or civil procedure, inherent in it.

   3. So this question is based on an assumption that can't be proved! No one should be condemned for not answering it to the satisfaction of the one assuming. Until the Greek lexicons define Apoluo as civil procedure, the desired end of this question is invalid. Brother Gwin, when he presented this chart, replied to brother Reeves' answer, saying. "Well, brother Reeves is wrong. She can't do what he did … it's already been done … the marriage is dissolved, there is nothing left to put asunder, there is nothing that she can do." It is correct that, once a person has been legally divorced, there is no more legal action that can be taken. But the question is phrased with the words, "put away," and those words translate the Greek word Apoluo, that according to Mr. Thayer, in divorce means repudiate. So, as the ungodly husband repudiated her, she may, if she has the cause of fornication against him, repudiate him. Repudiation is rejection. She rejects her vows of fidelity to him and thereby rejects him as her husband. Upon that action, based solely on the divinely authorized cause, God releases her from the marriage covenant and permits her to remarry (Mt. 19:9a).

   4. Brother Gwin's question is prefaced with these words: "You teach that an innocent woman, who was 'put away' by her husband, could then 'put away' her husband if he committed fornication." What brother Reeves teaches is not about the "innocent woman who was 'put away' by her husband" per Mt. 19:9. What he teaches is about the "innocent woman,' or "original wife," of brother Gwin's proposition. The innocent wife of Mt. 19:9 did not have the cause of fornication against her husband by which she might put him away and remarry, but the innocent wife of brother Gwin's proposition does have the cause that Jesus gives for the innocent spouse to repudiate the guilty mate and to remarry. That's the difference!

   Whether or not an innocent spouse is a put-away person is no part of Jesus' permission given to the innocent spouse to repudiate a fornicator-mate and to remarry. Jesus put no provisos to his permission. What he taught in Mt. 19:9a implies that whosoever puts away his mate for the cause of fornication does not commit adultery upon remarrying. It is brother Gwin's teaching that affirms that what Jesus permits is restricted by the proviso that the mate not be a put-away person! Jesus' teaching hinges the permission on the cause of fornication; brother Gwin's on the category that the woman be not a "put-away woman"!

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

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

Home Page