The next chart has to do with the alleged "2nd Putting-Away." Several of us have been charged with taking this position. The terminology is technically inaccurate, and neither brother Reeves nor myself use this language. Again, brother Gwin appeared to be debating someone else in his debate with brother Reeves. Please consider the following chart:

   1. Chart # 12 is titled, "If there is a “2nd Putting Away”… It is followed by a series of questions asking brother Reeves to describe the "conditions, terms, qualifications, means, method and verification" of this alleged "2nd putting-away." Of course, the chart completely misrepresented brother Reeves' position. The chart was apparently prepared for someone else.

   2. Where in the scenario treated by Jesus does brother Gwin get a “2nd putting-away?” It’s not there, right?

   3. In the scenario brethren Gwin and Reeves debated, two people are involved in putting away. The two spouses vowed when they married, and now they both disavow; that’s two puttings-away (not a "second" putting-away). Each spouse does only one! And, God approves only of the one of the innocent spouse against whom fornication has been committed. We have to wonder how brother Gwin and his associates would answer the scenario in which one committed fornication against his innocent mate and the two of them went to the courthouse together to get divorced, at the same time! They are going to publicly repudiate each other! One has the right to do so, and the other does not. Is the innocent the "put-away" party? Or, is it the "guilty?" Is God concerned with who was the fastest and first to repudiate, or is He concerned with who was guilty of fornication and who was innocent?

   4. Brother Gwin says, “Since the Bible is silent on this;” yes, because Matthew 19:3 speaks of only one putting-away; that of the husband, doing it for any cause (except for fornication).

   5. To get a “2nd putting away” one has to have a scenario different from the one presented to Jesus. The scenario of brother Gwin’s proposition has its solution in appealing to the principle taught by Jesus in Matthew 19:9a. The innocent wife against whom fornication has been committed has the divine right to repudiate the guilty mate and to remarry. She exercises only one putting-away, the one and only one that God approves. Brother Gwin’s doctrine deprives this innocent wife of the divine right wholly and solely on the basis of the ungodly action of the ungodly spouse whose putting-away did not affect the marriage bond at all!

   6. Brother Joel affirmed that The Bible is silent on this... Actually, brother Gwin doesn’t think the “Bible is silent on this,” because he affirmed in debate that “the Bible teaches” that the put-away wife of his scenario “may not remarry.” How did he learn that, if the Bible is silent on the matter?

   7. Brother Gwin gives a list of six questions. Let him answer them himself for his 1st putting-away, which he called biblical on a previous chart. Will courthouse action be among his answers? His questions assume what he can’t prove; that is, that biblical putting-away requires civil procedure with all of its “conditions, terms, qualifications, means, method, and verification.” Jesus uses a word of action (apoluo, put away) without specifying any particular procedure for executing that action! It means to repudiate, dismiss, or loose. There is no courthouse in apoluo.

   8. Brother Gwin asks: “When brother Reeves answers these questions, will he be ‘speaking where the Bible speaks’?” He leaves the question hanging, hoping that the reader will supply a “no” for the answer. The time to judge whether or not a person, in answering questions, speaks where the Bible speaks, is after he has answered! Brother Gwin can’t wait; he just wants to suggest a bad answer to be supplied! And, that’s debating? That's proving his proposition? He proves nothing.

   9. Here is a classic “ipse dixit” (Latin for, “he himself says it”): “In reality, for each lawfully bound couple there is one, and only one, putting away.” Where does brother Gwin read this in the Bible? What principle or passage states that God eliminates the repudiation rights of the innocent party on the basis of some ungodly "divorce" action taken by one bent on sundering a marriage? Brother Gwin and his associates argue that one cannot disavow a mate if that mate has already disavowed him. I wonder if their reasoning will work on the other end of the marriage equation. Are these men prepared to accept that one person can pronounce marriage vows for another person? If one can disavow for his mate, can he also vow for that mate? You may be thinking, "that's silly, that would mean that one could marry another against his will!" That's right! And, this is the logical consequence of brother Gwin's doctrine! The Bible teaches that just as two people make vows in the formation of the marriage relationship, two people may disavow each other in the breaking of that relationship. Both can't be right, but in cases where fornication has been committed, the innocent party is right to put-away the fornicator. The innocent is not obligated to remain bound to a fornicator-mate.

   Brother Gwin said, “In reality, for each lawfully bound couple there is one, and only one, putting away.” Who said so? (Brother Gwin says so. He asserts it like it is gospel truth, and that we are to accept it!) In reality, this cannot be found in the Scriptures. Is brother Gwin “speaking where the Bible speaks” when he affirms that for which he has no Scripture? One might as well claim that he is Napoleon, as for brother Gwin to claim that there is only one putting-away per marriage.

   There are as many puttings-away as there are persons putting away! But, God approves of only one: that of the innocent spouse who puts away the fornicator-mate. This is what the Scriptures affirm: Mt. 19:9a. This is what we affirm.

   Brother Gwin’s assertions aren’t Bible proof. His ipse dixit won’t suffice, not for those of use who want a “thus saith the Lord.”

   This completes part five of our study. Please check the next article in the series.

Introduction | Part Four of the Series | Part Six of the Series

Home Page