Greg Gwin has written an interesting article on divorce "provisos." The article is entitled, "Adding Provisos to Jesus' Teaching on Divorce & Remarriage." It is presently housed on Jeff Belknap's website. The article charges "some" (he later cites "Bill Reeves & Tim Haile") with adding provisos to the Lord's teaching on divorce. To those who have paid attention to what brother Reeves and I have spoken and written on this subject, brother Gwin's allegations are laughable. No honest reader can possibly believe that we are the ones adding provisos. We have consistently affirmed the right of an innocent spouse to put away his bound mate for fornication and marry another - period! Brother Gwin does not believe this unconditional statement. He attaches a condition. He says that an innocent person may put away his mate for fornication and marry another provided that some legal action has not already been taken by the fornicator. You see, brother Gwin employs the tactic of the errorist: He accuses others of the very thing of which he is guilty!

   Brother Gwin's article is wrong from the very beginning. He is immediately guilty of a deliberate misrepresentation of what the controversy is over. Brother Gwin describes this ongoing controversy as being over "mental divorce." If this controversy is indeed over mental divorce, then brother Gwin must believe in mental divorce! I base this conclusion upon the fact that he controverts with me and brother Reeves, yet we have openly and repeatedly denounced the concept of mental divorce. We have repeatedly observed that the Greek word for "put away" (apoluo) is a verb of action. It involves more than a mere thought process. It involves the rejection of one's bound mate. It involves the renouncing of one's marriage vows and the abandonment of one's marital duties and commitments.

   After quoting Luke 16:18, brother Gwin wrote:

   Brother Gwin states that he affirms that the put away woman cannot remarry. Brother Gwin, may the put-away woman remarry if the husband who put her away dies? If you say that she may not, then you deny Romans 7:2 & 3. If you say that she may, then you deny what you just affirmed. Brother Gwin emphasizes the absolute statement found in part B of Luke 16:18. He concludes that every put-away woman is forbidden remarriage on the mere basis that she was put-away. However, brother Gwin conveniently ignored the absolute statement found in the first part of Luke 16:18. Jesus said, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery." Brother Gwin, what about the putting-away man? Why did you ignore him? Why did you not also say, "We affirm what Jesus taught, that is, the putting-away man cannot remarry?" Is it always the case that every time a man puts away his wife and marries another he commits adultery? No, brother Gwin knows that it is not! He even quoted Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 in this very article. He knows full well that Jesus gave an exception to the no-divorce/no-remarriage law. Matthew's account amends Luke's statement with the words "except it be for fornication." This proves that Luke's account of the marriage law was not addressing divorce scenarios in which fornication had been committed! This is why the put-away woman commits adultery upon remarriage - not because she was a "put-away woman," but because of the absence of the fornication cause.

   Brother Gwin makes a dishonest application of Luke 16:18: He applies it to divorce scenarios involving fornication. Brother Gwin knows full well that Luke 16:18a has the same context as Luke 16:18b - a context absent fornication! In the context of this particular scenario - neither party can marry another. Brother Gwin knows that Luke 16:18 forbids remarriage for the putting-away party just as much as it does for the put-away party, but he cannot admit this without giving up his argument about "the put-away woman." As brother Reeves said about Greg Gwin's son, in the Hopkinsville debate, he has the concept of a box that contains "put-away" people. He sees being "put away" as a branded condition, not as a consequence of someone else's action. Of course, even brother Gwin will admit that some put-away people have the right to marry another. One may have been "put away" by a mate who has since died (Rom. 7:2-3). In this case, a put-away person now has the right of remarriage. The man in 1 Corinthians 7:11 had been put away by his wife (see the synonymy of chorizo in 1 Cor. 7:11 and Apoluo in Matthew 19:6,9). Though he was a put-away man, his wife was allowed to reconcile to him. Brother Gwin conveniently ignores these obvious truths. He knows that the honest reader will quickly pick up on this point and see through his vain attempt to classify "the put-away woman."

   In his zeal to charge us with that of which he is guilty, (i.e. adding provisos) brother Gwin accuses us of inserting the "provision" requiring one to be sexually innocent before having the right to remarry. (Yes, there is a good reason why you are scratching your head about now) - Jesus is the one who inserted this provision! I did not insert it, nor did Bill Reeves. This "provision" is taught in Matthew 19:9a. Jesus reserved the putting-away right for the sexually innocent party, not for the fornicator. It appears that brother Gwin has been so concerned with Luke 16:18 and the so-called put-away status that he has forgotten all about the putting-away authorization given in Matthew 19:9!

   I ask the reader, what are the implications of brother Gwin's argument? Why does he criticize us for requiring sexual innocence on the part of one before he he is authorized to put-away his fornicator-mate and marry another? Is he saying that Matthew 19:9 authorizes fornicators to put away their mates and remarry with divine approval? Others have indeed accepted this position. Two preachers have told me that in marriages where both spouses are guilty of fornication, remarriage is permitted for the fornicator who wins the civil divorce! Is this also brother Gwin's position? Has brother Gwin's emphasis upon divorce procedure driven him so far from the truth that he now completely ignores the scriptural putting-away cause? If this is not the case and brother Gwin does understand Matthew 19:9 to authorize remarriage only for the innocent spouse, then why has he been critical of us? If he truly accepts sexual innocence as being necessary for one to be able to reject his mate and marry another, then why does he accuse us of making this a "proviso?" There are two possibilities (as I see no others): One, brother Gwin has accepted the doctrine that a fornicator may marry another provided he wins the civil divorce against his (also) fornicator-mate, or two, in his zeal to accuse others, brother Gwin has made an argument that is ill-conceived, rashly stated and poorly articulated.

   The Pharisees did not question Jesus about two fornicators divorcing each other! He was asked whether it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause (Matt. 19:3). The exception clause allowing divorce and remarriage is "except for fornication." If no one may put away his mate except for the terrible sin of fornication, how then may the fornicator himself exercise the divine right? Brother Gwin charged us with making sexual innocence an added proviso. Words mean things, brother Gwin! In order for brother Gwin to make the charge that we have added a proviso, logic demands that he does not believe that sexual innocence is required for one to lawfully put away and marry another. It would follow then that even a fornicator may put away for fornication and remarry. If brother Gwin has now taken the position that, in cases where both spouses are guilty of fornication, the divorcing fornicator may remarry, then his position totally ignores the exception clause by granting to the fornicator the divine right to act because of fornication. Jesus said, "except it be for fornication." Jesus did not grant remarriage rights to fornicators; He granted remarriage rights to innocent people who put their mates away for fornication (Matt. 19:9). This is not a human proviso; it is a divine proviso. Yes, brother Gwin. You asked a very good question! "Who is adding the provisos?" This one was added by God. Greg Gwin will have to criticize God if he wishes to criticize this proviso!

   Let us again consider brother Gwin's quote. We shall this time emphasize the part of the quote dealing with the alleged "2^nd provision:"

   As we discussed above, brother Gwin accuses us of inserting the "proviso" that requires one to be sexually innocent in order for him to have the putting-away and remarriage right. As I pointed out, this is actually a divine proviso, not a human one. In the second alleged "provision," brother Gwin charges us with adding the proviso allowing a woman to repudiate her fornicator-husband even if he had already "divorced" her. But, is this really a human provision? Matthew 19:9 allows an innocent spouse to put away his fornicator-mate and marry another. Jesus did not teach that an innocent spouse may put away his fornicator-mate and marry another provided that the fornicator has not already taken some godless divorce action against him! This is brother Gwin's provision. It is unconscionable that brother Gwin has falsely accused some of us as he has. He has no real argument - he has merely accuses us of that of which he is guilty.

   Again, brother Gwin's allegation indicts the Lord Himself. Jesus did not condition the innocent person's putting-away right upon whether or not some godless action had already been taken against him by his fornicating mate. That is Greg Gwin's condition.

   Brother Gwin next wrote:

   That is right. In this particular divorce scenario - "the put away person cannot remarry." But brother Gwin, in this divorce scenario, one absent the cause of fornication, the putting-away man cannot remarry either! Why do you repeatedly ignore this? I know why. Conceding this point would force you to give up your argument on the status of the put-away woman. Instead of admitting the obvious truth that the put-away woman of Luke 16:18 had no fornication committed against her, brother Gwin engages in sophistry. He applies the consequences of one divorce scenario (one in which no fornication was committed) to an entirely different scenario (one involving fornication). Brother Gwin is not the only one making this mistake. I fear that some are led astray by this equivocation.

   Brother Gwin cannot cite a speck of evidence or a single quote where brother Reeves or I have argued that the woman of Luke 16:18 has the right to marry another. That passage addresses a scenario in which no fornication is in evidence. Neither party has the right to marry another! Neither the man doing the putting away, nor the woman who was put away may remarry. Why? Not because she is a put-away woman or because he is a putting-away man, but because neither one had the cause or fornication, for which to put away and remarry. Not only has brother Gwin dealt dishonestly with the passage, he has dealt dishonestly with his brethren. He has brazenly misrepresented us regarding Luke 16:18. To the honest reader, his dishonest tactics are exposed.

   Brother Gwin went on to cite Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 in an attempt to charge us with adding provisos. You will notice that the first charge is the same as above. The second one is different. He alleges that we have added the "provisions" of:

1. Requiring one to be sexually innocent before having a right to put away a fornicator-mate and remarry, and
2. Requiring that fornication be committed either "before or after the divorce" before one may reject his fornicator-mate and marry another.

   I have already addressed the first alleged "condition," so I will not comment further on it here. But let us more carefully consider brother Gwin's second alleged "condition."

   Brother Gwin criticizes us for requiring that fornication be committed by one's spouse before one has the right to "reject" that spouse. What is wrong with brother Gwin? Has he completely forgotten about the exception clause of Matthew 19:9a? Jesus added that provision! Matthew 19:9 allows one to put away (reject, repudiate) his spouse and marry another only in cases where that spouse is guilty of fornication! Does brother Gwin not allow this? The reader must wonder what in the world brother Gwin is objecting to? Why does he object to a person rejecting his mate on the grounds of his mate's previously committed fornication? This question is answered when one sees that brother Gwin uses the term "divorce" to mean something entirely different than the words "reject," "repudiate," and "disavow." This is seen, in part, by the fact that brother Gwin cites these words in quotation marks. It is seen more in the fact that he uses the words "divorce" and "reject" to refer to two different actions and events. Brother Gwin derides the notion of an innocent spouse being able to reject his fornicator-mate following a "divorce." Though it is obvious that brother Gwin sees this "divorce" as something different and distinct from rejection, he did not say what he actually means by the word "divorce." Does he mean "divorce" in the sense of its basic meaning of separation? Or does he mean legal, civil action? He does not say. He just criticizes our teaching allowing an innocent spouse to repudiate (see Henry Thayer's Lexicon) or reject (see the American Heritage Dictionary on the word "repudiate") his sexually immoral mate if that mate has already repudiated or rejected him! His position is, therefore, either a race to the courthouse, or a race to repudiation. Both positions ignore the Lord's exception that allows repudiation and remarriage for the innocent spouse on the grounds of his mate's fornication.

   I realize that it was not brother Gwin's intent in this article to plainly and positively set forth his position, or to forthrightly define the terms that he used. Perhaps he will see the need to do that some day. However, the article does contain some important implications that I would like to consider.

1. By accusing others of adding conditions and provisions to the Lord's teaching on marriage and divorce, brother Gwin diverts attention away from what he and others have been doing. Rather than answering the arguments made by his opponents, he employs a diversionary tactic. It is also a carnal tactic. It evades and avoids the truth. While it may be an effective way of "winning" an argument, it does not win men to the truth. It diverts their attention away from it.
2. Brother Gwin's article implies that he and others are not guilty of adding any provisos to the Lord's teaching. He accuses others of doing so. He repeatedly asked, "Who is adding provisos?" This question is easily answered from brother Gwin's own article. I ask the reader to simply consider our positions:
1. My position is that an innocent spouse has the God-given right to put away his fornicator-mate and marry another (Matthew 19:9a). I make no additional demands of the innocent party. He has the right to do what God says he can do.
2. Brother Gwin's position is that an innocent spouse may put away his fornicator-mate and marry another provided that he has not already been civilly divorced or otherwise "put away" by that fornicator. Brother Gwin adds a provision to what Jesus taught. He limits the right of putting away to one who has not had some previous unapproved civil divorce action taken against him by a godless mate. "Who is adding provisos?" The honest person will see that it is Greg Gwin!
3. By criticizing those who teach that the innocent spouse may put away a fornicator-mate on the grounds of the fornication that was committed after the ungodly divorcer's unapproved "divorce" action, brother Gwin implies that fornication is rendered irrelevant on the basis that it was committed after the godless mate had already departed from his innocent mate. Hence, another of brother Gwin's provisos! He teaches that a mate's fornication is relevant PROVIDED that it is committed before the fornicator "divorces," rejects or leaves the innocent party.

   Brother Gwin wrote:

   a) Brother Gwin should consider this question: If five husbands put away their wives, does that add up to five puttings-away?  If not, how many are there?  If a hundred do it, how many puttings-away occur?  Is your answer an "assumption?"   Our statement, "there are as many puttings-away as there are persons putting away," is axiomatic.  You don't like our obvious statement of fact because you don't like the idea of a certain category of persons, "the put-away wife," being able to accomplish a putting-away.

   b) In questioning our statement, that "both mates made their vows, and now both can disavow," Greg, are you implying that one of the two parties can make the vows for both, and that one can disavow for both?  Does that work for both marriage and divorce?

Brother Gwin wrote:

   Jesus taught that the innocent spouse may put away his mate for fornication and marry another.  Greg Gwin teaches that such is true provided that the innocent spouse was not previously divorced.  He will not accept Jesus teaching unless his proviso is inserted!  And he has the gall to accuse others of adding provisos!  As for us, we do not teach anything as to the rights of "the put away person." We teach what Jesus taught, and that is that the innocent spouse may put away the fornicator-mate and remarry!  Now, what have we added, by way of provisos, to what Jesus taught?

   Brother Gwin's article charged others with adding provisos to the Lord's marriage law. He first charged us with requiring sexual innocence on the part of one who had the right to dismiss his sexually immoral mate and marry another. As we observed, brother Gwin's charge indicts our Lord. He then charges others with allowing a woman to reject her husband only "IF he commits fornication (before or after the divorce)." He called this "condition #2." Along with his Bible, brother Gwin needs get out a good dictionary. By the time he got to his alleged "condition #2" he had strayed far from the dictionary definition of the word "condition." A "condition" is something that limits and restricts action. How on earth is one guilty of limiting or restricting the rights of the innocent spouse by teaching that his mate's fornication could be committed either before or after a (civil) divorce? In what way is that restrictive? Brother Gwin's charge defies truth and reason. It is brother Gwin's position that limits the innocent party, not mine! And it is brother Gwin's position that attaches provisos to the Lord's marriage law.

Tim Haile