The next chart is a "review" chart. Since we have already addressed the main points on this chart, we shall comment here only briefly:

   We have only a couple of observations:

   1. Brother Gwin's proposition does not "exactly" parallel the Lord's teaching in Luke 16:18 and Matthew 19:9. In the Lord's teaching, the put-away woman's husband was not guilty of fornication! The woman in brother Gwin's proposition did have fornication committed against her.

   2. We agree that "order is important." We agree that the innocent party's putting-away must follow his mate's fornication. Brother Gwin must have been debating someone other than brother Reeves if he thought his "order" argument would answer him!

   Yes, "remarriage of the put-away person was specifically forbidden by Jesus - 3 times!!!" However, brother Gwin overlooks two important facts:

   This chart is a good example of how charts can be prepared to manipulate the facts and force a preconceived conclusion. We proceed to expose the sophistry in brother Gwin’s chart:

   The very words of Jesus, spoken to show who may not remarry, brother Gwin uses to show “who has the right to remarry”! Brother Gwin leaves in what he wants, and leaves out what he wants, and in this way he effects a conclusion that he wants! He includes part of what Jesus explicitly says, and leaves out part. He includes what by necessary inference can be said from what Jesus’ statements imply, and leaves out the necessary inferences that he wants to leave out. Jesus mentions two men in the active voice, but no women, and brother Gwin mentions two women in the passive voice, but no men. And this is handling aright the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15)? This is preaching the word (2 Tim. 4:2)? This is being honest? No, this is being a sophist, presenting only the parts that will lead minds to the conclusion that the sophist desires. And the reader (of the chart) is not supposed to be smart enough to catch the sophistry!

   1. Matt. 19:9 has two parts; we’ll call them “a” and “b.” Remembering what Jesus was asked (19:3), we see that he is explicitly stating in “a” that a man (husband) is active in doing two things: putting away his wife, and marrying another woman. This results in adultery, the point of Jesus’ “chart”. (Obviously this man may not remarry, because he did not put away for fornication, which is the only cause for doing so). Therefore, basing ourselves solely on the explicit language of Jesus, we construct a true chart, and opposite “a” we put one man.

   In the “b” part Jesus is explicitly stating that a second man is active in doing one thing: marrying the put-away wife. (Obviously this man may not marry her, because she was still bound to her husband). So, constructing a true chart, opposite “b” we should put one man.

   How does this compare with brother Gwin’s chart? Brother Gwin, opposite the “a” part, has two men, not one, and in the “b” part he has two women and not the one active man that Jesus puts in his “chart.”

   2. Now, let’s consider the two parts of 19:9 from the standpoint of what men and women are referenced by Jesus. In the “a” part there is one man, and two women: the man puts away (active voice), and his wife is put away (passive voice) and the “another” woman is married (passive voice) by him. So, opposite the “a” part Jesus’ “chart” now shows one man and two women.

   In the “b” part there is one man and one woman: the man marries (active voice) the put-away wife of the husband, and the woman is married (passive voice) by him. So, opposite the “b” part, Jesus’ “chart” now shows one man and one woman.

   How does this compare with brother Gwin’s chart? Well, Jesus in part “a” has one man and two women, but brother Gwin has two men, and no woman at all! In “b” part, Jesus has one man and one woman, but brother Gwin has two women, and no man at all! Somebody is trying to pull something over on us! Someone is picking and choosing to effect a desired outcome!

   3. But the sophistry continues. Brother Gwin introduces necessary inference into his chart, and this is legitimate. What Jesus states in 19:9 implies certain conclusions (inferences). But brother Gwin is going to include two inferences that he wants (“the man who puts away his wife FOR fornication,” and “the woman who is put away FOR fornication”), and is going to exclude the corresponding inferences that he doesn’t want. Where he is headed is simply that the woman may not remarry, period! This is the force of his contrived chart. He has only one green check mark, indicating the right to remarry; it is for a particular man. Neither of his two particular women may remarry! No sir, because he has a woman in his proposition who may not remarry!

   Well, including now in the picture the points that can be necessarily inferred, what do we have in Jesus’ “chart?” (Remember, Mk. 10:11,12 tells us that the woman can do what the man can do). Opposite the “a” part we have an active man, putting away his wife for any cause (except fornication), and an active wife putting away her husband for any cause (except fornication). We have an active man who marries another woman, and an active wife who marries another man. We have a passive woman who is married by the putting-away husband, and a passive man who is married by the putting-away wife. That’s a total of three men and three women. Now, how does that compare with brother Gwin’s chart? Why, he has but two men! (See that second man, with the green check mark? He is there by necessary inference! Fine, but the same thing can be said about the innocent wife who puts away her fornicator-husband (Mk. 10:11,12). Where is she with her green check mark? Brother Gwin knows and admits that both the husband and the wife, IF THERE HAS BEEN NO PREVIOUS DIVORCE, may put away the fornicator-mate and remarry! Right, brother Gwin?

   In the “b” part, we have an active man, marrying the put-away wife, and an active woman, marrying the put-away husband. We have a passive woman who is married by the other man, and a passive man who is married by the other woman. (Remember, based on what Jesus says in Mk. 10:11,12, the woman does exactly what the man does). That’s a total of two men and two women. How does that compare with brother Gwin’s chart? Why, he has but two women! Where is the one man of whom Jesus explicitly speaks, or the two men that by necessary inference can be mentioned? Brother Gwin conveniently leaves them out! He doesn’t want any men in the “b” part. He wants to mention only women, and only in the category of no-right-to-remarry!

   4. Brother Gwin uses the explicit statements of Jesus in Mt. 19:9, the necessary inferences that can be deduced from what Jesus states there, and the active and passive, voices of the different actors. All of this is legitimate and in order. Now, taking all of this into account, lets compare Jesus’ “chart” with brother Gwin’s.

JESUS’ CHART:

*      A man unjustly puts away his wife, a man is unjustly put away by his wife, and a man who is married by the wife who unjustly puts away her husband.

     A woman unjustly puts away her husband, a woman is unjustly put away by her husband, and a woman who is married by another man.

**      Another man who marries the put-away wife, and the put-away man who is married by another woman.

     Another woman who marries the put-away man, and the put-away woman who is married by another man.

GWIN’S CHART:

   7. Which chart teaches the truth, Jesus’ or Gwin’s? Charts are good teaching tools, but they easily can be designed to show partial truths and to distort truth itself. This is what brother Gwin’s charts do throughout the series. What is left out can be as crucial to an issue as what is included. In preparing his charts, picking and choosing is a popular tactic of the false teacher!

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

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

Home Page