On February 14^th, 2004, Steven Harper posted a Burns Park church of Christ bulletin article to Bible Matters entitled, "Arguing An Impossible Hypothesis." This article is another of brother Harper's attempts to explain how the God-given right for an innocent spouse to put away his fornicator-mate and marry another is nullified by the prior unlawful actions taken by that godless mate. Brother Harper believes that if the innocent spouse is unlawfully divorced by his godless, covenant-breaking mate, the innocent spouse has no right to put that godless mate away for his subsequent fornication. Brother Harper believes that the godless mate's fornication is rendered irrelevant as a result of it being committed after he had already departed from his innocent spouse. Brother Harper has the innocent spouse of this scenario bound to the fornicator for life. Jesus taught that an innocent spouse has the right to put away his bound mate for fornication and marry another (Matt. 19:9a). Brother Harper believes this may be done provided the innocent spouse was not beaten to the putting-away action by the godless mate. Jesus said, "except it be for fornication" (Matt. 19:9a). Brother Harper accepts the Lord's provision but he doesn't think it goes far enough. His position compels him to attach an additional provision requiring the innocent spouse to be the first to put away. This provision is required by Steven Harper, but it is nowhere required by Jesus.

   In this article, though he did not mention our names, brother Harper quoted me and brother Reeves in order to make his arguments. Throughout this response, I will therefore be making references to what brother Reeves and I have either said, or not said. Here are the quotes. The first one is from brother Reeves. The second one is from me.

   Brother Harper attempted to compare our teaching to that done by 1^st century Sadducees. He referenced their question dealing with a "hypothetical situation," then desperately and unsuccessfully tried to connect us to those Sadducees. He wrote:

   Brother Harper seems to have overlooked the fact that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the Sadducees' question! Yes, it was hypothetical, but Jesus answered it (Matt. 22:29-32)! Even though the Sadducees' scenario was not specifically addressed in Mosaic law, their question was entirely legitimate. By answering the question, Jesus attested to its legitimacy. And Jesus' answer put them to silence (Matt. 22:34)!

   Brother Harper's application of this story backfires on him. What about the question of a woman's right to put away her husband for fornication? By brother Harper's standard it would be Sadducaical to ask such a question! He would be arguing "an impossible hypothesis." Right? Brother Harper knows that the Bible doesn't specifically address this question. He knows that this question is answered only by combining and applying the principles of passages that speak of a man's actions in putting away his wife. Brother Harper's argument indicts him as being a "Sadducee" when he answers this question. He is guilty of the very thing of which he charges us.

   Brother Harper later charged us with violating the silence of the Scriptures. He alleges this on the basis of our applying New Testament principles to a divorce scenario not specifically addressed by Jesus. Brother Harper has about as much understanding of the principle of the silence of the Scriptures as he does of necessary inference! Perhaps a brief lesson is in order.

   One does not violate God's silence by applying biblical principles to cases, questions, circumstances and scenarios not specifically contained in the Bible. One violates the silence of the Scripture by adding an entirely different principle or practice to what the Bible allows. Brother Harper is inconsistent on this point. I have noticed that on other subjects he has no reluctance to apply biblical principles to cases and circumstances not specifically addressed in Scripture. Using brother Harper's definition, he has violated "the silence of the Scriptures" when he allows a woman to put away her fornicator-husband. Brother Harper condemns me and brother Reeves for doing what he does. He should read Matthew 7:1-5, Romans 2:1 and Proverbs 26:7. "The legs of the lame are not equal."

   Matthew 19:9a teaches that an innocent spouse may put away his mate for fornication and marry another without committing adultery. I wonder if brother Harper has ever considered how we are taught this truth? Assuming that brother Harper does agree that an innocent spouse may put his mate away for fornication and marry another, upon what does he base his conclusion? Does he base it on "the silence of the Scriptures?" No, he (and anyone else who reaches this conclusion) reaches it on the basis of necessary inference. This truth is taught in Matthew 19:9a by divine implication. Activating the fornication exception clause leads us to this conclusion.

   Please go back and read the last part of brother Harper's above quote. He cited Matthew 19:9b and Luke 16:18b to prove that a put away woman "commits adultery" by remarrying. Brother Harper, where did you read this? Where in Matthew 19:9b or Luke 16:18b does the Bible say that the put-away woman "commits adultery?" I wonder which version of the Bible brother Harper is using? Both passages explicitly say that a man commits adultery by marrying the put away woman, but they do not explicitly say that the woman commits adultery. Of course, this woman does commit adultery, but we learn this from necessary inference. Brother Harper repeatedly cites these verses, claiming that a put-away woman "commits adultery" by marrying another. Should we accuse brother Harper of basing his position on "the silence of the Scriptures?" Should we accuse him of being a "Sadducee?" Is he arguing "an impossible hypothesis?" No, he is arguing on the basis of necessary inference. Honesty requires me to be fair and accurate in my assessment of brother Harper's position. I will not make the kind of wild, ill-conceived and baseless charge that brother Harper made against me and brother Reeves. Though he obviously has not considered this before, brother Harper is not arguing from God's silence if he allows an innocent wife to put away her fornicator-husband and marry another. Nor does he argue from God's silence when he asserts that the woman of Matthew 19:9b and Luke 16:18b commits adultery upon remarriage. He argues these things from necessary inference. I do not falsely charge brother Harper on the basis of my own misunderstanding of the principle of God's silence! Though he has been careless in his wording, and hypocritical in his applications, brother Harper is correct when he charges the woman of Matthew 19:9b and Luke 16:18b with committing adultery. By necessary inference, we know that the put-away woman of the particular divorce scenario addressed by Jesus in Matthew 19:9b and Luke 16:18b does commit adultery by marrying another man. However, we don't know this from direct statement - we know it because it is taught by divine implication. By implication, what is true of the man is also true of the woman. Brother Harper is correct when he charges this woman with committing adultery when she marries another, but he is hypocritical when he condemns others for using the same hermeneutical approach in interpreting and applying the principles of these same verses to other cases.

   Luke 16:18a is as much an absolute statement as is Luke 16:18b! Let the reader observe carefully that brother Harper excludes Luke 16:18a from his reference. Luke 16:18a reads:

   His position demands that he ignore the first part of the verse. Brother Harper's argument ignores the fact that BOTH parties in Luke 16:18 commit adultery upon remarriage. By marrying another, the putting-away man commits adultery just like the man who married the put-away woman. Why? Because the only cause that Jesus gave for putting away and remarrying was fornication and no fornication is in evidence in Luke 16:18! But he applies this passage to a scenario in which fornication IS in evidence. Luke 16:18 says:

   Brother Harper binds part b of this verse as an absolute statement, but he cannot do this with part a! He knows that not every putting-away man commits adultery by marrying another. He knows that Luke 16:18a is qualified by the exception clause in Matthew 19:9a. (Notice that brother Harper uses necessary inference when it is convenient for him. However, according to brother Harper, others, like brother Reeves and myself, are not permitted to employ this method of determining truth. When we do it, according to brother Harper, we are guilty of violating the silence of the Scriptures!) Brother Harper overlooks the fact that the presence of fornication changes the consequences of the putting-away and remarriage actions (cp. Matt. 19:9a and Lk. 16:18).

   Does Steve Harper believe that Lk. 16:18a teaches: "Whosever puts away her husband and marries another, commits adultery"? I would assume that he does believe this. Now, does the exception clause of Matthew 19:9a apply to HER (as it does to the husband's putting away his wife)? If she puts away her husband for fornication, does she commit adultery upon remarrying? If HE doesn't, why does SHE? Is not an unlawfully put-away wife still the wife of the husband who so put her away? Here is a question for brother Harper: "If a wife, not for fornication, puts away her husband, does he commit adultery upon remarriage?" If he answers yes, how does he know that (without being a "Sadducee" and without "arguing an impossible hypothesis)?

   Brother Harper represented us as allowing a put-away "woman" to remarry. I assume that this was a careless mistake on his part, but the reader may be dangerously misled by his inadequate wording. In the very quotes that he later cited, brother Reeves and I used the word INNOCENT to describe the condition of the unlawfully put-away spouse. Bother Harper failed to attach this important description when attempting to represent our view. Jesus taught that an innocent spouse has the God-given right to repudiate his fornicator-mate and marry another without committing adultery (Matt. 19:9a).

   As I mentioned above, brother Harper produced quotes from me and brother Reeves where we defended the right of an innocent spouse to put away his fornicator mate even in cases where the fornicator had already taken some prior (unlawful) divorce action against him. He then made these remarks:

   Brother Harper is wrong when he charges us with offering "no Scripture." I have repeatedly cited Matthew 19:9 in defense of my conclusion. Does brother Harper not classify Matthew 19:9 as "Scripture?" Matthew 19:9 teaches (by implication) that an innocent spouse has the God-given right to put his mate away for fornication and marry another without committing adultery. This verse well supports my position! It is actually brother Harper who lacks scriptural support for his position. He needs a verse that teaches that the innocent person may exercise this divinely given putting-away right provided that some previous divorce action has not already been taken against him. Brother Harper's position requires an additional exception clause. His position REQUIRES Matthew 19:9 read as follows:

   My position is not based upon the silence of the Scriptures; it is based upon a necessary inference from the direct statement in Matthew 19:9. Before hurling any more accusations, brother Harper needs to do more study on the subject of the silence of the Scriptures, as well as basic principles of establishing Bible authority.

   After quoting me and brother Reeves, brother Harper tried to make a point about the fact that "one of these men has been preaching for decades..." Well, I have been preaching for just over 2 decades, but I really think Steven has reference to Bill Reeves. Brother Reeves has been preaching for six decades. Regardless of which one of us it is, neither of us has ever appealed to our preaching tenure to justify our teaching about the rights of the innocent party! Has brother Harper seen evidence that suggests that some people accept brother Reeves' arguments, or my arguments on the mere basis of how long we have been preaching? Or does he merely surmise that some believe this? Brother Reeves and I have gone straight to the words of Jesus in order to make our arguments. Contrary to this, brother Harper asserts and binds his own opinions. He imagines Jesus limiting the innocent person's putting-away right by the unlawful action taken by his godless, fornicating mate. He certainly hasn't read it in the Bible!

   It appears that brother Harper needs even more lessons in biblical hermeneutics. By comparing brother Reeves to brother Hailey, brother Harper suggests that he doesn't know the difference between law and the application of law! Brother Hailey changed the law. Brother Reeves has not. Like me, brother Reeves teaches that fornication must be present before a lawful putting-away can occur (Matt. 5:32a; 19:9a). As I understand it, this is also what brother Harper claims to teach. If it is not, I hereby publicly challenge him to an oral discussion of our differences. I will affirm that the Scriptures teach that an innocent spouse has the God-given right to put away his fornicator-mate and marry another. Brother Harper can deny this if he is so inclined, and the debate can be scheduled. If, however, he refuses to deny my proposition on the grounds that it is what he also believes, then he admits to teaching what I teach. So, where is our disagreement? Not on the scriptural rule; it must be in the area of application. Brother Harper affirms that Christ's rule CANNOT be applied except when he permits it. He sees himself as qualified to pick the times when Christ's rule can be applied. He is wrong. He is guilty of substituting his opinion in place of the truth, and binding it upon his brethren. By definition, this makes brother Harper a heretic.

   Brother Harper said, "some of these men have even admitted that such a hypothetical scenario cannot be found anywhere within Scripture." Well, brother Harper, what about the hypothetical scenario not (explicitly) found in the Scriptures of the innocent wife putting away her fornicator-husband? Does brother Harper know of a Scripture that explicitly states this? No! He does what he condemns us for doing: he uses necessary inference. On the other hand, if HE can address his scenario by necessary inference, so can WE address the scenario of the unlawfully put-away wife's repudiating her fornicator-mate.

Brother Harper also wrote:

   Another way for brother Harper to accurately represent our position in such a scenario is for him to refer to the innocent person's lawful putting-away as a subsequent putting-away. It is subsequent to the unlawful putting-away. Brother Harper has falsely accused us. He must do this in order to win his argument. He must use his choice of words in order to bias his hearers and readers.

   Don't be fooled by brother Harper's objection to the word "repudiate." He does this by design. He likes the word "divorce" because of its legal connotation. The Greek word "apoluo" has no inherent legal connotation, and that is exactly why he doesn't like the word "repudiate." It has no legal connotation either!

   Brother Harper cited certain passages in an effort to show that once the action of apoluo is taken, there remains no more possibility of its being done again. Of course, brother Harper was forced to use examples of one-sided action. He spoke of relationships of only one to another, not both to each other! Marriage is a mutual relationship! His examples don't fit the marriage relationship. He wrote:

   Brother Harper makes a worse mistake with Matthew 18:27. The passage does not help him at all. He wrote:

   Brother Harper also cited the example of Pilate releasing (apoluo) one from captivity (Matt. 27:17). But the relationship between Pilate and Barabbas was not parallel to the marriage relationship. Surely brother Harper can see the difference. Marriage is an equal, bilateral contract between a man and a woman. Does brother Harper see marriage between a man and a woman as an equal relationship, or does he see it as a Pilate/Barabbas type of relationship? If so, in brother Harper's own personal marriage, is he Pilate or is he Barabbas? If he sees himself as Pilate, then I sure do feel sorry for his wife!

   Again, brother Harper, "apoluo" is translated by repudiate in some translations, and millions of other people know it because they read it in their Bibles! You are simply wrong about this. J.H. Thayer used the word repudiate to define apoluo when the word is "used of marriage."

   There is a simple explanation for brother Harper's position denying the repudiation rights of a repudiated innocent party. He sees only a physical relationship when he thinks of biblical putting-away. He does not see the relationship suggested by the terms "wife" and "husband." He does not see a marriage bond! Herodias was "married" to Herod, but she was Philip's wife (Mk. 6:17), which emphasizes the bound relationship. The "departed" woman of 1 Corinthians 7:11 was "unmarried" with regard to the physical relationship, but the man from whom she had "departed" was still called her husband. She was still bound to him. Matthew 19:9 says one puts away (repudiates) his WIFE, not his physical marriage relationship! The Scriptures teach that a wife may put away her bound husband for the cause of fornication. Brother Harper has no argument at all.

   The put-away woman of Matthew 5:32b and 19:9b was by implication prohibited remarriage. But this was not because she had now been classified as a put-away woman! It was because her husband had not committed fornication! Jesus stated two consequences of a man doing what the Pharisees asked Him about in Matthew 19:3. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" Jesus answered that question in Matthew 19:9 and cited two consequences of the man's unlawful repudiation action:

• The man who divorces his wife not for fornication commits adultery when he marries another.
• The man who marries the put away woman commits adultery.

Tim Haile
7693 Russellville Rd.
Bowling Green, KY 42101