|
Exposing The Sophistry Of Joel Gwin's Debate Charts: by Bill Reeves and Tim Haile August 04, 2003 Brother Gwin's charts 7 and 8 are very similar, and shall therefore be considered together. Chart 7 employs the wording of Luke 16:18, while chart 8 employs the wording of Matt. 19:9. Both charts purport to show a parallel between the passages and Joel Gwin’s proposition that was debated. Upon examination, the apparent parallel is more apparent than real. In fact, the supposed parallel fails the test. The right side of the two charts is NOT parallel to what Jesus said in either Luke 16:18 or Matthew 19:9. Brother Gwin's proposition has fornication being committed against a "scriptural" wife. The cause of fornication is not in evidence in Jesus' scenario. Matthew's account does mention fornication as the exception to the putting-away rule. However, it is important to notice that Jesus did not develop that scenario. He did not specifically address a scenario in which fornication was committed. He was not asked about such a scenario and he did not answer that scenario. In exposing the fallacy of the one chart, the other chart remains equally exposed as fallacious. Here are the charts:
1. What Lk. 16:18 and Mt. 19:9 teach is: a. The consequence should the husband put away his wife for just any cause (except for fornication). Should he marry another he commits adultery! b. The consequence should another man marry that wife put-away for any cause (except for fornication). Should he marry that woman he commits adultery! c. Note: Jesus talks about the supposition in which two men take certain actions and about the consequences of such actions. Brother Gwin’s charts talk about two specific actions of a man and about what a certain woman may not do. His parallel fails! 2. Jesus is answering the question (the scenario) presented him by the Pharisees. They did not ask Jesus about the scenario discussed in brother Gwin’s proposition. Or, will brother Gwin affirm that one can read his proposition in the Scriptures somewhere? If one could, then most certainly brother Gwin’s would have simply cited that passage, and closed the debate! 3. Note what the Luke and Matthew passages actually (literally) say: a. Lk. 16:18, “Every dismissing the wife of him and marrying another commits adultery, and the (one) marrying a woman having been dismissed from a husband is committing adultery”. In part “a” of the verse, Luke uses two present participles (every putting away person / and marrying another person), and then one present indicative (he is committing adultery). In part “b” he uses a perfect passive participle (the having been dismissed woman), a present participle (the marrying her one), and a present indicative (he is committing adultery). b. Mt. 19:9, “Whoever might dismiss the wife of him, not for fornication, and might marry another, is committing adultery, and he that might marry her that is put away , is committing adultery.” In part “a” of the verse Matthew employs two aorist SUBJUNCTIVE participles (being subjunctive they express a suppositional case, not an actual real event as does the INDICATIVE mood). They are: might dismiss / might marry. He then employs the present indicative mood: is committing adultery. In the “b” part, he uses an aorist participle (might marry) and the indicative mood (he is committing). c. Summing it up, it is clear that Jesus, according to Luke, is saying that every husband who is doing thus and thus is committing adultery, and every man that is marrying the husband’s so put-away wife is also committing adultery. According to Matthew, Jesus is saying that should a husband put away his wife and should he marry again, he is committing adultery, and that every man who might marry her who is so put away is committing adultery. When these two men do this, Jesus says, they commit, or are committing, adultery. Brother Gwin’s side of the chart doesn’t say this! His side has an actual scenario in which (1) a husband puts away his wife unscripturally, (2) THEN he goes and does something else: he commits fornication, and after that happens, his put-away wife may not do something: marry again. THERE IS NO PARALLEL BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES OF THE CHARTS #7 and #8. Note that on brother Gwin’s two charts on the left side there is no “THEN.” Why not, if the two sides are parallel? Because they are not parallel thoughts! 4. Brother Gwin’s scenario is one of actual events in sequence! a. A husband puts away his wife for just any cause. b. THEN, he says, the ungodly husband goes and commits fornication. (There is no “then” on the left side of the chart representing Jesus’ scenario. Jesus didn't say "then" this... or "then" that... He simply spoke of the consequence of a man putting away his wife when neither one had committed fornication. Joel has to supply the "then" in order to prop up his position.) c. After the fornication has been committed, the original wife, brother Gwin tells us, may not exercise her God-given right to repudiate her mate for the cause of fornication that has actually been committed, and to remarry (Mt. 19:9a). d. His supposed parallel fails, because in Jesus’ words of teaching there was no cause of fornication involved in the husband’s putting away his wife. Brother Gwin’s “original wife” is not the wife discussed by Jesus: Gwin’s "wife" actually had fornication committed against her, but the wife of Jesus’ scenario did not have fornication committed against her! 5. Jesus’ point is not brother Gwin’s point! a. Jesus’ scenario is a tentative assumption, made to draw out a definite conclusion: Should a husband do such and such, the result is adultery, and should another man do such, he too is committing adultery. Jesus didn’t say that some husband actually did something, nor that some other man actually did something. b. Brother Gwin’s scenario is one of sequential events: if the husband actually does something, and then he goes and actually does something in addition, then afterward a particular woman is not permitted to do a particular thing. THIS DOES NOT PARALLEL THE TEACHING OF JESUS! c. Brother Gwin confuses two different scenarios. The wife of HIS scenario has the cause of fornication, but the wife of Jesus’ scenario does NOT! This completes part three of our study. Please check the next article in the series. Introduction | Part Two of the Series | Part Four of the Series |
