QUOTES FROM MENTAL DIVORCE ADVOCATES

(Beginning with the most recent quotes)

“DW’s theory is that no innocent, moral, vow-keeping, put away, faithful divorced husband/wife is authorized to remarry, when divorced by a fornicating, immoral, ungodly spouse. IF that adulterous, unfaithful, cheating spouse is the first to decide to repudiate his/her innocent, faithful spouse and is the first to get to the lawyer, file for divorce, and get the decision of legal divorce from the judge in a civil court, then the innocent party has no recourse and no rights, except to live single, celibate, the remainder of his/her life. DW quotes and misapplies part of Matt. 5:32, 19:9, and Luke 16:18, to get to the heart and substance of his theory. He writes:

‘and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery…and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery…and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.’ Then he plainly states his theory again: ‘Who is this woman? Jesus answers that question when He describes this woman as ‘a woman who is divorced…’ or ‘her who is divorced from her husband…’ Contextually, the woman that commits adultery if she remarries is the woman that was unlawfully put away by her husband. It is the innocent wife put away not for fornication.’

DW’s theory could not be stated clearer! Here is an innocent, moral, covenant-keeping, godly and faithful wife whose husband turns out to be a sorry, cheating, fornicating, immoral, ungodly man. He repudiates and divorces his ‘lawful’ wife (DW says above ‘that was unlawfully put away by her husband’), marries his paramour, and then his true, lawful and godly ex-wife is doomed to a life of loneliness, celibacy, and rejection because her immoral, fornicating husband decided to divorce her and beat her to the lawyer, judge, and court to get a civil divorce. DW says she will be an adulteress if she remarries, no matter how pure and godly she really is or has been.” Bill Cavender [A Response to Brother David Watts Jr.; Bible Banner (11-14-04)]

Take away all of brother Cavender’s extremely emotional adjectives (additives) in the paragraph immediately above, and you will have the words of Jesus which state “and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32b; cf. 19:9b; Luke 16:18b; Romans 7:2-3). After unapproved divorcement, reconciliation with one’s bound mate is the only remarriage that is authorized, as long as both bound parties live (I Corinthians 7:10-11; cf. Romans 7:2-3).

I ask you, what if that “ungodly spouse” who is “the first to decide to repudiate his/her innocent, faithful spouse and is the first to get to the lawyer, file for divorce, and get the decision of legal divorce from the judge in a civil court,” never fornicates?

Does his/her equally “innocent, moral covenant-keeping, godly and faithful” bound partner have to remain celibate or reconcile as long as that “ungodly spouse” lives (cf. Matthew 19:12; I Corinthians 7:11)? Absolutely; no one in the course of this controversy has argued otherwise! So all the emotional circumstances in the world do not alter Jesus’ statement that “whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (cf. Romans 7:2-3).

“All my life I have urged and cautioned divorced, put away, people NOT to remarry, although Jesus gave innocent, divorced people a right of remarriage, when his/her spouse has been guilty of adultery. I have NEVER conducted a marriage, wedding ceremony for a divorced person. I have ever believed that even ‘innocent’ people, who have kept their vows and have been faithful, moral and pure in their marriage, might not be aware of their shortcomings, attitudes, habits, words, traits, mistakes, etc., which might have contributed to the unhappiness and unfaithfulness of the sinful husband/wife.” Bill Cavender [A Response to Brother David Watts Jr.; Bible Banner (11-14-04)]

“I cannot find in my Bible where Jesus or the apostle bound the length of time an innocent person has to wait after a divorce for fornication before he/she can remarry, no more than how long a person has to wait to remarry after the death of a spouse. I am not willing to make tests of fellowship in such matters.” Bill Cavender [A Response to Brother David Watts Jr.; Bible Banner (11-14-04)]

“But, and IF, a husband or wife, in separation and departure one from the other, whatever the reason or excuse he/she conceives to justify their separation, no matter how much distance is between them, no matter how much time expires in their separation, IF adultery does take place, then the exception clause of Matt. 19:9 applies. Paul said Jesus commanded them to remain unmarried and to be reconciled (I Cor. 7:10). But one spouse will not obey Jesus, will not be reconciled, lives apart from his/her spouse, and goes and commits adultery. The other party remains faithful to the vows of marriage and desires reconciliation. The codicil of Matt. 19:9, which Jesus gave, then has application.” Bill Cavender [A Response to Brother David Watts Jr.; Bible Banner (11-14-04)]

“DW believes that no faithful husband or wife may remarry IF the adultery, fornication, of the guilty mate does not occur before there is a departure and spatial separation.” Bill Cavender [A Response to Brother David Watts Jr.; Bible Banner (11-14-04)]

“DW thinks if a husband and wife separate, this is ‘the old waiting game’ and ‘mental divorce.’ Who is he (or any other man), one to be talking about ‘the waiting game’? He does not know the problems of this couple (unless they truly understand their problems and honestly relate them to him), what has transpired in their marriage to create their problems. He does not know all their attitudes, words and deeds. He is an outsider to their marriage. He cannot read hearts. He cannot judge motives. ‘What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is within him?’ (I Cor. 2:11).” Bill Cavender [A Response to Brother David Watts Jr.; Bible Banner (11-14-04)]

Amazing! Such argumentation is reminiscent of the teaching that one cannot be charged with being “a false teacher” unless we can know their motivation and heart (I Corinthians 2:11).

According to brother Cavender, when two people divorce due to “problems of this couple” “in their marriage” and then one of them employs a post-divorce “putting away” when the other commits the inevitable (i.e. fornication), they are not guilty of “the waiting game” and “mental divorce.” Moreover, he implies that one can never be charged with the “waiting game” unless the accuser can be sure that the portrayal of “attitudes, words and deeds” behind the disintegration of “their marriage,” have been honestly related. In other words, unless we can “know” what scripture reveals is impossible to know, then we cannot “judge” among ourselves, as the Lord has commanded (I Corinthians 5:9-13). Who can believe it? 

Brother Cavender’s next two quotes also illustrate this absurd belief:

“If a husband/wife separates and departs, and one spouse is not wanting separation but desires reconciliation and resumption of the marriage, that one is not guilty, even though it might appear to DW that he/she is ‘playing the old waiting game.’ DW is not competent to judge in such matters. He is ‘a busybody in other men’s matters’ (I Peter 4:15) and is completely out of his place and work as a gospel preacher. Only two people in a marriage and God Almighty REALLY know what all has occurred in the relationship, to trouble and disturb it. DW doesn't know, yet he presumes to be a judge in such matters.” Bill Cavender [A Response to Brother David Watts Jr.; Bible Banner (11-14-04)]

Apparently, gospel preachers are no longer “competent to judge” whether or not one is in an approved marriage (John 7:24; I Corinthians 2:15)! Evidently, we are simply a “busybody in other men’s matters (I Peter 4:15)” if and when we, like John the Baptist, dare tell people “It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18). Please read Jude 3-4!

“DW says this is ‘mental divorce’! How does he know the mind and motives in any particular case? Are not all marriages and divorces, in their inceptions, ‘mental’? Are not the thoughts, emotions, motives, purposes, determinations and deeds of people, ‘mental’? Is not falling in love, or hating, or envy, or jealousy, ‘mental’?” Bill Cavender [A Response to Brother David Watts Jr.; Bible Banner (11-14-04)]

“If God in heaven imposes a sentence of suffering upon His children, fine and well. So be it! We must submit with joy, wait in patience, and walk by faith, believing and knowing that God has a righteous purpose for us in the heartaches and sorrows of His children (Rom. 8:18-39). But when men, as DW, teach a false theory, call Jesus and the apostles to witness that what is false is true, and then impose their own penalty of suffering, of sorrow and loneliness upon unfortunate, innocent people who had their marriages to dissolve against their will, then it is unconscionable. As Guy N. Woods said of this theory, ‘He who so affirms has abandoned reason, revelation and good sense!’ This is truly binding where God did not bind, ‘heavy burdens and grievous to be borne’ (Matt. 23:4), and should be rejected by all true believers who love the word of the Lord, and who will not allow opinionated preachers to bind their opinions and the consequences of their theories upon people who already have enough heartaches, sorrows and difficulties with which to cope.” Bill Cavender [A Response to Brother David Watts Jr.; Bible Banner (11-14-04)]

“The above by Guy N. Woods well states what I have believed and taught for fifty-eight years.” Bill Cavender [A Response to Brother David Watts Jr.; Bible Banner (11-14-04)]

Brother Cavender says he agrees with Guy N. Woods when he says of his “John and Jane” illustration:

“Being a Christian woman, she does not recognize the state’s legal grounds for divorce, willing only to accept the Lord’s ground - fornication.”

“If the objection is raised that Jane did not divorce John but John (the guilty party) divorced Jane, it should be remembered that divorce is a civil, legal action having nothing whatsoever to do with determining the moral and religious principles involved. It is the Lord’s edict not man’s, that governs.”

Brother Cavender affirms that since civil law permits what is unapproved by God, the event of a wrongful divorce is not real and of no consequence. However, what did Jesus propose in Matthew 19:6 (Mark 10:9)? Yea, what did Paul declare in I Corinthians 7:10-11?

Unbiblical pre-suppositions will always result in unbiblical doctrines. Note the unbiblical conclusion also stated by Guy N. Woods:

“The New Testament teaches that when one of the parties of the marriage bond becomes guilty of fornication, the other (the innocent one, not the guilty) may scripturally put away the offending party and remarry.”

Brother Woods is describing something that takes place after a sundering of the marriage has already taken place! The unbiblical supposition is that a “putting away” is possible after the fact of divorcement.

“The New Testament condemns divorce. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, ‘To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband’ (1 Cor 7:10b). Further, he forbade the husband from leaving or departing from his wife. ‘And a husband must not divorce his wife’ (1 Cor. 7:10b). The use of the verb ‘let’ is equal to a direct order. ‘What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder’ (Mark 10:9)…

…In the unfortunate event that a wife finds it impossible to remain with her husband and departs, Paul said to the wife, ‘But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband, (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife’ (1 Cor. 7:11). Remaining unmarried is a choice, but not the best choice. Remaining unmarried is not a sinful choice. Who can think the Lord would allow a wife who is departed from her husband to remain in a sinful condition?” Dudley Ross Spears [May I Marry Again?; Bible Banner; (10-5-04)]

Early in this article, brother Spears teaches the truth—that God gave “a direct order” not to divorce [Mark 10:9 (fornication is the only exception to His rule—Matthew 5:32; 19:9)]. Then, in a later paragraph, he reveals his inability to harmonize I Corinthians 7:11 with God’s “direct order” (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9; I Corinthians 7:10)! See: The Seven Sins of an Unscriptural Divorce

The belief in multiple causes for divorce (NOT for fornication), seems to be growing among those who are now pressing and approving the “Mental Divorce” position. See: Two False MDR “Applications” Combined

“About Belknap’s view, apparently many more hold it than I once supposed. The view I have long held, as long as I can remember, is that civil court decrees do not determine whether or not a couple are joined before God. A civil divorce decree in a court of law doesn’t unjoin them and it’s absence doesn’t make them joined. If a man seeks to put his wife away in a court of law, he may succeed in getting the court to rule as he desires, but he is still joined to her whether he likes it or not. Hence when he marries again, he is in fact committing adultery. I believe that’s what the scriptures teach. Belknap’s view makes the civil procedure determinative.” Jeff Smelser [e-mail letter (9-17-04)]

“And while my thinking has been modified in some specific respects, I still fundamentally believe that civil law has nothing to do with the definition of the beginning or ending of marriage before God. And in fact, having spent considerable time studying civil laws in the various states, it is clear to me that even our laws are intended to be reflective of what is rather than determinative of what will be. Belknap’s view (in my estimation) is a classic case of Phariseeism, substituting the traditions of men for the word of God. Moreover the traditions Belknap would impose are actually misunderstandings of civil law.

In practical terms, here’s the best I can tell you about my thinking on the present controversy. Consider the case of a man named Dick who is married to Jane. Dick is a faithful husband, but Jane tires of the marriage and asks for a divorce. Dick refuses to give her a divorce and instead works ever more diligently to make the marriage work. Nonetheless, Jane goes to a lawyer, sues for divorce, and gets a judge to grant her the divorce. Dick at no time consents to this. Subsequently, Jane has a sexual relationship with another man. Can Dick put Jane away and remarry?

I note that the Lord did not say, ‘Whosoever shall have been involved in a putting away, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.’ He said, ‘Whosoever shall put away...’

I do not see that I can assume Jane’s activities necessarily preclude Dick’s ability to put her away.” Jeff Smelser [e-mail letter (9-17-04)]

“If an ungodly spouse unlawfully puts away his innocent mate, that is one putting away that occurs. We all believe that that is what has occurred. Then if the innocent spouse, for the cause of fornication, puts away the fornicator-mate, that also is a putting-away. We all believe that that is what has occurred. So, in this scenario, we all ‘believe in two puttings-away;’ that is, that two puttings-away or repudiations have OCCURRED. But in this scenario does any one of us believe in two puttings-away THAT THE LORD APPROVES? Of course not! None of us believes in such! So, why this false charge that ‘they believe in two puttings-away?’” Bill Reeves [Tell It Like It Is and Complete the Sentence; Bible Banner (8-22-04)]

“Where the cause of fornication is in evidence the divine permission to repudiate and to remarry obtains. It is God who joins two in a marriage bond, and who alone can release one from that bond, giving the divine permission to repudiate and remarry. Nothing that ungodly men might do (in and out of courthouses) can nullify or invalidate that divine permission that is in the hands of God alone!” Bill Reeves [“It’s Very Straight Forward” Yes, In Context It Is!; Bible Banner (6-16-04)]

“That good woman, who made such a blunder, is still single. She was unjustly ‘put away’ in a civil court of men by an ungodly mate but in the court of heaven she is innocent and could remarry if she desired to do so.” Bill Cavender, Truth Magazine (May 20, 2004), “Observations and Experiences Regarding Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage (4)”

Note: Within brother Cavender’s series, he cites one emotional (hearsay) story after another in an effort to assert the above. Whatever happened to speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent (Isaiah 8:20; I Peter 4:11)? Or doing Bible things in Bible ways (II Corinthians 10:12; Colossians 3:17)?

Such scenarios prove no more about Biblical truth than does the scenario that Baptists cite, of the man who was killed on his way to be baptized. Let us never forget that no matter whether the one who “is put away” is as “innocent” as the white, driven snow…ad infinitum, Jesus’ remarriage laws regarding the “put away” still remain true (cp. w. Matthew 19:9, 12; Romans 7:2-3; I Corinthians 7:11)!

In the same article quoted above, though brother Cavender cites no book, chapter and verse to support his assertion that those who are put away (and innocent) have the right to remarry another, he does, cite a commentator (not scripture) to advocate his position which contradicts the Masters’ teaching that “whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32b; cf. Matthew 19:9b; Luke 16:18b).

“Charles Hodge, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians (334) correctly commented: ‘The State can neither make nor dissolve the marriage tie. It may enact laws regulating the mode in which it shall be solemnized and authenticated, and determining its civil effects. It may shield a wife from ill-usage from her husband, as it may remove a child from the custody of an incompetent or cruel parent. When the union is in fact dissolved by the operation of the divine law, the State may ascertain and declare the fact and free the parties from the civil obligation of the contract. But it is impossible that the State should have authority to dissolve a union constituted by God…’” Bill Cavender, Truth Magazine (May 20, 2004), “Observations and Experiences Regarding Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage (4)”

Note: In Matthew 5:32; 19:6, 9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; I Corinthians 7:10-11, 15 the New Testament clearly reveals man’s ability to “put asunder” the “one flesh” marriage relationship against the will of God. Hence, Paul stated that the twain who were once “one flesh” after an unapproved divorce have become “unmarried” (I Corinthians 7:11). Unfortunately, Truth Magazine’s new stance on MDR is in direct opposition to what the Word of God says (Revelation 19:13)!

“Not all divorced people are wrong and in sin. Some of them are scripturally divorced and remarried. Jesus, our Lord and Master, gave such a right and permission. Such ones have a right to be God’s child and to prepare themselves for death and eternal life in heaven. No man has a right to forbid innocent, moral, faithful, divorced people from engaging in a scriptural, moral, innocent remarriage (1 Tim. 4:3).” Bill Cavender, Truth Magazine (May 6, 2004), “Observations and Experiences Regarding Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage (3)”

Note: Brother Cavender can make this assertion all he wants, but it still does not change the gospel truth that “…whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matthew 5:32b; 19:9b; Luke 16:18b)! Other than after the death of one’s bound partner (Romans 7:2-3), where does brother Cavender find scripture to support his theory that remarriage of a divorced or put away person to another is “scriptural, moral,” or “innocent”? It just is not there! Hence, is brother Bill’s teaching “of heaven or of men?”

Moreover, when Bill cites I Timothy 4:3 (above), he is falsely charging those who are contending against his error (Proverbs 28:4; Jude 3-4) with binding the “doctrines of devils” (I Timothy 4:1-3). By these actions, Bill is not only teaching error, he is falsely condemning the just. Brethren, it is no little sin to be a partaker with those who “justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just” (See Proverbs 17:15). Additionally, to support any sinful activity, is to strengthen the hands of those who do evil. Note the following:

“I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.” Jeremiah 23:14 (cf. Romans 15:4; II Peter 2:1-2)

“Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life.” Ezekiel 13:22 (cf. Romans 15:4; II Peter 2:1-2)

Aiding and abetting (being a partaker with) a man (or men) who do not teach “the doctrine of Christ,” is to be a “partaker of his evil deeds” (II John 9-11). This is also in direct disobedience to the word of God (Romans 16:17-18; I Corinthians 5:6-8; 15:33; Ephesians 5:6-7, 11).

“His laws regarding this basic human entity, the family, are clear and sensible. Men complicate, obscure, pervert, and nullify, in the minds of people, God’s will with all their additions and opinions, binding where God did not bind and loosing where God did not loose. The only scriptural and consistent course anyone can follow is to tell people four truths: (1) marriage is for life, a lifetime covenant and commitment, (2) death is the only honorable, godly way to ever dissolve a marriage, (3) a husband or wife can ‘repudiate, reject, divorce’ (Greek: apoluo) his/her companion only for adultery, (4) and only the innocent, moral, faithful-to-the-marriage vows has the right of remarriage (the guilty, adulterous husband/wife does not have such a concession from the Lord). When we get into areas of opinions as who files for divorce in the civil courts, who gets the divorce decree in civil courts, what does the paperwork and divorce decree say, and invent such phrases as ‘mental marriage,’ ‘mental divorce,’ ‘waiting game,’ ‘second putting away,’ ‘the innocent, put away person cannot remarry,’ etc., we solve no marriage problems, we help no one in their troubled marriages, we bind where Jesus did not bind, and make no scriptural contribution to the cause of truth and salvation of souls.” Bill Cavender, Truth Magazine (May 6, 2004), “Observations and Experiences Regarding Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage (3)”

Note: Brother Cavender claims that those who are now actively opposing the post-divorce “putting away” and remarriage to another theory have “invented such phrases.” However, terms such as “‘mental marriage,’ ‘mental divorce,’ ‘waiting game,’ ‘second putting away,’ ‘the innocent, put away person cannot remarry,’ etc.,” have been used to identify the same doctrine that brother Cavender is presently advocating for many years. [See The Patton-Phillips Debate (1987); Connie Adams’ editorial in The Warnock-Deason Exchange, Searching the Scriptures magazine (1986), and Donnie Rader’s commentary in his book, “Divorce and Remarriage: What does the text say?” (1992), Lesson 8, Mental Divorce (May Some Put Away People Remarry). Also note Mental Marriages and Mental Divorces (by Gene Frost), published by The Preceptor Company, 1982.] Regrettably, brother Cavender attempts to portray those who are now opposing the doctrine of post-divorce “putting away” as isolated radicals who have just “invent”(ed) some new terms to condemn an area of “opinions.”

For the record, if “…whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” is a matter of opinion, then it is the opinion of the Lord God Almighty (Matthew 5:32b; 19:9b; Luke 16:18b)!

If brother Cavender and others succeed in their quest to portray those who are consistent in their opposition to this error as radical inventors, he will have gone a long way to further acceptance of his (and Truth Magazine’s agenda) number 3 & 4 doctrine that “(3) a husband or wife can ‘repudiate, reject, divorce’ (Greek: apoluo) his/her companion only for adultery, (4) and only the innocent, moral, faithful-to-the-marriage vows has the right of remarriage (the guilty, adulterous husband/wife does not have such a concession from the Lord).”

Though such assertions may seem sound to those who are not familiar with his other teachings in this controversy (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25), brother Cavender’s other quotes reveal that he considers those who are the “innocent, put away, divorced” to be in the category of those who can later “‘repudiate, reject, divorce’ (Greek: apoluo) their companions for adultery committed following the divorce (see # 3), and thereby supposedly secure “the right of remarriage” to another (see # 4). Brother Cavender’s assertions and Christ’s teaching about those who are “put away” could not be any more contradictory.

Don’s first question:

1.                  Sue and George develop marriage problems. Sue is not sure what went wrong other than what some call a mid-life crises on the part of George. George just does not want to remain married to Sue. Since no fornication is involved, there cannot be a biblical and God approved putting away. Nonetheless, George pursues the divorce and six months later, the civil decree is granted.

A.                 A year following the putting away, George meets Alice and marries her. All should agree that fornication has now been committed.

The question: Since the marriage bond remains, may Sue now put away George based on fornication and be able to with God’s approval marry another?

Tim here,

Assuming that Sue was sexually innocent, and did nothing to contribute to the prior unapproved and sinful divorce action taken by George (Matt. 5:32), YES, Matthew 19:9a authorizes Sue to put George away for fornication and marry another.

Don comments:

Tim’s answer of “yes” certainly is indicative of his position that after the fact circumstances can allow the put away to later put away and be able to marry another. Tim inserts into these after the fact of the divorce circumstances the matter of post divorce fornication. I decidedly disagree with Tim because the fornication that allows for a scriptural putting away and subsequent marriage to another is always fornication that PRECEDES and causes the putting away, not AFTER the fact fornication. Don Martin/Tim Haile [Tim Haile’s Answers to my Three Questions; Bible Matters (4-30-04)]

“In the early thirties Joe ‘took up with’ another woman in that little town where we lived. He was openly ‘shacking up’ with her. He wanted a divorce but ‘Aunt Ida’ would not divorce him, as all that Methodist family did not believe in ‘the disgrace of a divorce.’ Joe persisted in his adultery. He would not repent. He had rejected Ida, his lawful wife, and wanted to marry his ‘sweetie.’ After some time Ida said he could have a divorce, provided he got the divorce ‘for adultery,’ admitting his guilt. He did. He got the divorce on the grounds of his own adultery. He soon married his paramour. Ida was an innocent, put away, divorced woman. Jesus gave her the right to remarry.” Bill Cavender, Truth Magazine (April 1, 2004), “Observations and Experiences Regarding Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage (2)”

Note: In Matthew 5:32 and 19:9, Jesus clearly taught the distinction between those who put away and those who are put away. Those who the Lord authorized to “put away” (break-up the marriage) and marry “another” are those who “put away” (sunder the marriage; cf. vs. 3, 6) for the cause of fornication.

Jesus never authorized those who are “put away” (“innocent” or not) to “put away” and remarry another while their bound spouse is alive (Romans 7:2-3; I Corinthians 7:11). In fact, three times inspiration quotes Jesus as stating, “whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32b; cf. Matthew 19:9b; Luke 16:18b). However, in denial of the Lord’s decree, brother Cavender makes the contrary assertion, “Ida was an innocent, put away, divorced woman. Jesus gave her the right to remarry.”

Brother Cavender, like his fellow associates involved in this present controversy, is turning the attention away from the more extreme, less emotional scenario of post-divorce “putting away” for post-divorce fornication, to the less extreme and more emotional scenario of a second “putting away” for pre-divorce fornication. However, be not deceived, brother Bill and his associates are contending for both!

“No laws of men, of any culture or country, in any century of time, can ‘join’ or ‘put asunder’ marriages for God. God does that, the Scriptures say (Gen. 2:23-24; Matt. 19:3-6; Mark 10:9; Eph. 5:31).” Bill Cavender, Truth Magazine (March 18, 2004), “Observations and Experiences Regarding Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage (1)”

Note: Not only was the above statement within the Truth Magazine article itself, this erroneous declaration was also highlighted in a “call out box.” Nevertheless, the Bible does not teach that God is the one who “‘put(s) asunder’ marriages.” Man marries (with or without God’s approval) and sunders the “one flesh” relationship (with or without God’s approval), whereas God binds and looses. Please note a few verses that clearly teach the exact opposite of brother Cavender’s above statement:

Matthew 5:32, “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (emp. jhb).

Matthew 19:5-6, 9, “And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder…9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (emp. jhb).

Luke 16:18, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”

I Corinthians 7:10-11, 15, “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife…15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.”

To deny that man can wrongfully “put away,” “put asunder,” “divorce,” “depart,” etc. is to deny God’s sacred Word (cf. II Timothy 4:3-4).

“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.” Tim Haile [Response to Steven Harper’s: “Answering an Impossible Hypothesis;” Bible Banner; Also sent out to “Undisclosed-Recipients” (2-29-04)]

“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.” Tim Haile [Response to Steven Harper’s: “Answering an Impossible Hypothesis;” Bible Banner; Also sent out to “Undisclosed-Recipients” (2-29-04)]

“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.” Tim Haile [Response to Steven Harper’s: “Answering an Impossible Hypothesis;” Bible Banner; Also sent out to “Undisclosed-Recipients” (2-29-04)]

“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.” Tim Haile [Response to Steven Harper’s: “Answering an Impossible Hypothesis;” Bible Banner; Also sent out to “Undisclosed-Recipients” (2-29-04)]

“The exercise of the innocent person’s divinely given putting-away right is not a ‘second putting-away.’ It is simply a putting-away! It is the only putting-away that he does! The innocent person does not put away twice. If brother Harper wishes to accurately represent the position that we hold and teach, let him speak of a lawful putting-away that is done by the innocent party. This lawful putting-away is different from the unlawful one that is done by the fornicator. Both divorces are real, but one is approved by God, and the other one is not.” Tim Haile [Response to Steven Harper’s: “Answering an Impossible Hypothesis;” Bible Banner; Also sent out to “Undisclosed-Recipients” (2-29-04)]

“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.” Tim Haile [Response to Steven Harper’s: “Answering an Impossible Hypothesis;” Bible Banner; Also sent out to “Undisclosed-Recipients” (2-29-04)]

Brother Harper’s illustration is not analogous to marriage. In marriage, two people vow to each other, and in divorce, two people are able to disavow and repudiate each other. Of course, only one putting-away is approved by God (Matt. 5:32; 19:9).” Tim Haile [Response to Steven Harper’s: “Answering an Impossible Hypothesis;” Bible Banner; Also sent out to “Undisclosed-Recipients” (2-29-04)]

Marriage commences the life of a physical union. It signifies the birth of the “one flesh” relationship that was formed by two individuals (Matthew 19:5-6). Divorce ends the life of the “one flesh” relationship (signifying its death for both partners) – regardless of whether one or both agreed to it.

A scenario in point: If Dan and Debbie conceived a child together, and Debbie chose to sinfully abort the baby (signifying its physical death) against Dan’s wishes, the baby would still be dead. Though the baby’s soul would live on, innocent Dan, who wished to save the baby’s physical life, would have no control over it once all was said and done. God alone is in charge of the soul, just as He alone is in charge of the bond, once a marriage dies due to divorce.

Once the “one flesh” relationship is broken by one or both, it is terminated. Innocent or guilty, neither can “put away” a mate who is already “away,” nor can either party “depart from” the other who is already long gone. The post-divorce “putting away” theory is absolutely unbiblical.

Brother Haile’s claim that “in divorce, two people are able to disavow and repudiate each other” is nowhere authorized in THE BOOK. There is absolutely NO scripture that teaches that an “unmarried” (I Corinthians 7:11) person who “is divorced” (Matthew 5:32b) / “put away” (Matthew 19:9b) may subsequently “‘disavow’ for fornication” and marry another? Assertions are not the word of God!

“Brother Harper’s argument has another hole in it. He seems to be suggesting that just because Jesus sent the crowd away He could not have this same action taken against him. The one who sends away can be, on another occasion, the one who is sent away.” Tim Haile [Response to Steven Harper’s: “Answering an Impossible Hypothesis;” Bible Banner; Also sent out to “Undisclosed-Recipients” (2-29-04)]

It is clearly brother Haile’s “argument” that has a “hole in it.” After “Jesus sent the crowd away” (apoluo) He could not “have this same action taken against him” (“on another occasion”) unless He and the same crowd came backed together again (cf. I Corinthians 7:11; “reconciled”)! You cannot “put away” what is already “away”!

“I know for an absolute fact that, when fornication is committed, the innocent spouse’s repudiation action relates to the marriage bond. It is implied by the fact that the innocent party is free to marry another following such putting away action! God does not free one to marry another unless He has released that one from the marriage bond. And if the innocent spouse’s repudiation rights are indeed related to the marriage bond, then what difference does it make for the innocent spouse if his godless mate has already “departed” from him before committing his fornication?” Tim Haile [Response to Steven Harper’s: “Answering an Impossible Hypothesis;” Bible Banner; Also sent out to “Undisclosed-Recipients” (2-29-04)]

“Or if he puts her away and then goes and marries somebody else, he’s guilty of fornication. I’m talking about an innocent person, now. I’m not talking about two who decide they don’t want to live together anymore, get a divorce and one waits on the other to commit fornication in order then to remarry. I’m talking about an innocent person who’s been put away by a man or a woman, who’s been put away, and then later, goes out and remarries, may have his eye on (laughs) somebody when the divorce takes place, the innocent party may remarry on the basis fornication.” Weldon E. Warnock, [2-29-04 Radio program (WJLS 99.5 FM, Beckley WV) sponsored by the Beech Creek church of Christ, Meador, WV.]

“And this soldier in TX years ago (laughs), he couldn’t go to the courthouse and file, it was already done. But he could use the law of God. And let me tell you something. The innocent party has least the right of one putting away. I hear this idea, two puttings away, the second putting away. That’s nonsense.  Here’s the man who puts away his innocent wife, here’s the fornicator who puts away his wife, that’s one civil divorce.  But you know the Lord allows one for the innocent partner, neighbor.  Are you listening to me? Then you say I disagree with the decree of Jesus Christ. Shame on you.” Weldon E. Warnock, [2-29-04 Radio program (WJLS 99.5 FM, Beckley WV) sponsored by the Beech Creek church of Christ, Meador, WV.]

“I believe what the Bible teaches, I’ve preached it for 50 years. And they’ve got this article, Weldon Warnock’s 19 Year Progression of Error. Well, that’s funny that nobody else has ever found that out, if I’ve been preaching this for 19 years. But he didn’t give me enough credit, I’ve been preaching for 50 years, and preaching the same thing and believing the same thing that I’m teaching tonight. No, I didn’t disagree with the decree of Jesus Christ, Ladies and Gentlemen.” Weldon E. Warnock, [2-29-04 Radio program (WJLS 99.5 FM, Beckley WV) sponsored by the Beech Creek church of Christ, Meador, WV.]

“And what about this man over in Texas who’d gone to Vietnam and he came back, and his wife had divorced him. What would you tell him to do, my friend? What would you tell him to do? Ya-oh, you can’t marry. I tell you about some of these preachers, if we got in a fix like that, they’d be remarried in six months. There’s a few of ‘em like that, anyway. Now, that’s not true with all of ‘em. But there’s some of ‘em, they’d see their position a little bit differently.” Weldon E. Warnock, [2-22-04 Radio program (WJLS 99.5 FM, Beckley WV) sponsored by the Beech Creek church of Christ, Meador, WV.]

“Now that’s it, friends. I told this story some time ago, about a soldier during the Vietnam war, over in TX. He was gone 12, 13 months to Vietnam, he left for Vietnam, a wife behind, and when he returned a year or a little longer, she had divorced him and married somebody else. Now, the question: Could he remarry? He did about two or three years later, brethren thought nothing of it, could he remarry? Not according to the preacher in Southern WV. No, no, no, no. It was post-divorce fornication.” Weldon E. Warnock, [2-22-04 Radio program (WJLS 99.5 FM, Beckley WV) sponsored by the Beech Creek church of Christ, Meador, WV.]

“This brother is saying that if a faithful, um, innocent party is divorced by a fornicating husband, or he divorces his faithful spouse, or faithful wife, and then he commits fornication, marries somebody, that she can never remarry.

The innocent party can’t remarry (laughs), ah – va, though, put away by a fornicating husband. And, ih - if, if you claim that you can, then you have ‘em living in adultery. And adulterers, you know, can’t go to heaven. Now that’s, these are the consequences of this, of this doctrine.” Weldon E. Warnock, [2-8-04 Radio program (WJLS 99.5 FM, Beckley WV) sponsored by the Beech Creek church of Christ, Meador, WV.]

“But here’s the innocent party, wants to salvage the marriage, doesn’t want a divorce, and she is put away or he is put away, then she or he becomes the innocent party, as the spouse commits adultery. Now that’s what the Bible teaches and that’s my convictions, and that’s what I’ve preached through the years.” Weldon E. Warnock, [2-1-04 Radio program (WJLS 99.5 FM, Beckley WV) sponsored by the Beech Creek church of Christ, Meador, WV.]

See many more similar quotes at: AUDIO CLIPS (and scroll down)

“In the current discussion concerning the marital prospects of certain persons who have been divorced, some have argued that in Mark 10:11 when Jesus said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her,’ the her refers to the second wife, not the first. Those who make this argument suggest that Jesus may have meant the man commits adultery with the second wife, rather than against her.” Jeff Smelser [A Response to Brother Barnett on Mark 10:10-12; Gospel Truths, Volume XV, NUMBER 2 (February, 2004)]

It’s important that the reader knows exactly what brother Smelser is actually contending for in this exchange. He himself stated that this exchange transpired during “the current discussion concerning the marital prospects of certain persons who have been divorced.”

To read the entire exchange click: Barnett-Smelser Exchange.htm

Also, please note the public teaching of brother Smelser directly below. - Jeff

Subject: Re: The innocent put away and divorce/remarriage

Jeff Smelser here,

This issue is one wherein I believe some of the disagreement is not due to party politics, nor to moral laxity, nor to stupidity, nor to doctrinal squishiness. I believe some of the disagreement is simply misunderstanding. If I am the one who misunderstands, I want to be shown. I most certainly do not want to be found by the Lord to have encouraged sin by teaching people who do not have a right to marry that they do have such a right.

The scripture says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” The best I can tell, we can understand that to indicate that a man who puts his wife away for fornication does not commit adultery by remarrying.

The putting away to which Jesus refers was an act between a man and his wife whereby the man renounced his claim upon the woman. (See Josephus, Ant. 4.253, Hastings Bible Dictionary, vol. 3 p. 276.) It was not a 3rd party court action.

Consider the case of a man named Dick who is married to Jane. Dick is a faithful husband, but Jane tires of the marriage and asks for a divorce. Dick refuses to give her a divorce and instead works ever more diligently to make the marriage work. Nonetheless, Jane goes to a lawyer, sues for divorce, and gets a judge to grant her the divorce. Dick at no time consents to this. Subsequently, Jane has a sexual relationship with another man. Can Dick put Jane away and remarry?

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” It seems to me we have to answer these questions:

(1)    Is she Dick’s wife in the scriptural sense of the term?

(2)    Has she committed fornication?

(3)    Can he put her away for fornication?

It seems to me that if the answer to all of these questions is yes, I have no right to stand in judgment of Dick if he remarries. So let’s answer these questions...

(1)    Is she Dick’s wife in the scriptural sense of the term?

Yes. Herodias was Philip’s “wife,” though she had divorced Philip (Antiq. 18.5.4) and had married Herod (Mk. 6:17). The word for wife is merely the word for woman. “His wife” (i.e., his woman) implies that she belongs to him. Does Jane still belong to Dick? Herodias still belonged to Philip.

Dick and Jane were joined by God, and the divorce did ot change that. Jesus said that even if she marries another, it is adultery (Mk. 10:12). The fact that her relationship with another man would be adultery confirms that she still belongs to Dick.

(2)    Has she committed fornication?

Yes. Fornication is any illicit sexual intercourse. dultery is included. She has committed adultery, and therefore she has committed fornication.

(3)    Can he put her away for fornication?

Yes. In NT times a Jewish man would put away his wife by renouncing his claim upon her. He would give her a document whereby he would certify that he would have no further intercourse with her. Can Dick do that today? Certainly he can. Can such renouncing have any meaning after a divorce has already been granted by a court? Certainly it can, for prior to such, she still belongs to him.

Given these facts, I believe I have to come to this conclusion:

(1)    I would be making myself a judge of the law rather than a doer of the law if I condemned Dick's remarrying. I would be binding where I cannot see that God has bound.

(2)   And if Dick does indeed remarry and I then insist that he divorce his 2nd wife, to the best of my knowledge, I would be encouraging the very thing Jesus prohibited in Mt. 19:6.

Jeff Smelser

“It is used to affirm that there is nothing else that can be done by the innocent spouse when fornication occurs after an unlawful civil divorce has taken place. We ask: Nothing else can be done about what? Do they mean nothing else can be done to put asunder the marriage relationship that already has been put asunder by the ungodly spouse? Or, do they mean that, after the ungodly mate has put asunder the marriage relationship and commits fornication, the innocent spouse has no action left of any kind that can be taken?

What man can put asunder, or separate (Chorizo), is the marriage relationship of living together as husband and wife. Since God has joined together the two who made their vows to each other to so live, God prohibits them from separating themselves from that one-flesh relationship (Matt. 19:6), except for fornication (vs.. 9). Either spouse certainly is able to deny his vows and break the physical relationship, whether God approves of it or not. Now, who says that there is some other physical, one-flesh relationship that can be put asunder, that give these objectors an occasion to shout: ‘There is nothing else to put asunder’? There is no more physical, one-flesh relationship to put asunder, but there certainly is something else that can be done as relates to fornication when it occurs!

These brethren are playing with words! Bill Reeves [Nothing Left To Put Asunder Nothing Left To Do; Bible Banner (2-8-04)]

Jesus equated putting away with sundering the “one flesh” marriage relationship (Matthew 19:3, 4-6). To assert that putting away can be something totally unknown to scripture is the real “playing with words.” Nowhere in God’s Word is putting away one’s mate portrayed as occurring after the “one flesh” relationship has already been dissolved.

“If the ungodly spouse puts asunder the marriage relationship, is there another physical marriage relationship that the innocent mate can put asunder? No. Is there anything else that can be done by the innocent mate? Yes, the innocent mate, upon the occurrence of fornication by the ungodly spouse, can certainly do something. He can exercise his God-given right to repudiate the fornicator by renouncing his vows made to him. Upon this action, God looses the innocent one from his vows made to the guilty spouse, thus giving the innocent one permission to remarry without committing adultery.” Bill Reeves [Nothing Left To Put Asunder Nothing Left To Do; Bible Banner (2-8-04)]

Brother Reeves certainly leaves no doubt as to what he believes regarding the “right” for put away persons to exercise a post-divorce “putting away” and remarriage after their spouse commits post-divorce fornication. However, where in the word of God is this idea revealed (Romans 10:17)? We are not to “think” beyond what is written (I Corinthians 4:6; II Corinthians 10:5)!

“The reason that the ‘her’ refers to the wife who is put away, and not to the ‘another’ (woman), is that the issue at hand has to do with a man and his wife (ver. 2) and not with a man and some other woman that he might marry.” Bill Reeves [A Review of Maurice Barnett’s Two Articles on Mark 10:11, 12; Bible Banner (1-31-04)]

I continue to marvel at this argument. This same line of reasoning is expressed when it is argued that Jesus’ emphasis was not ‘timing’, but ‘cause’ in Matthew 19:9. Are both attributes necessarily mutually exclusive? Can one written attribute be emphasized, while another is still necessary? What of our use of Mark 16:16 to emphasize the necessity of baptism for salvation? Is belief not also important or necessary?

You see, if we admit that Jesus revealed His rule for both the one who “put(s) away” as well as for the one who “is put away,” the entire theory of a second “putting away” and remarriage to another (while one’s bound mate lives – Romans 7:2-3) would be exposed as folly.

Hence, by diminishing the importance of the divine decree regarding the one who “is put away,” errorists boldly assert that post-divorce adultery justifies the “innocent party” to employ a post-divorce “putting away,” which they also affirm will allow the previously put away person to remarry another. Regrettably, by the elastic expansion of the exception clause in Matthew 19:9a and by the diminished divine decree in Matthew 19:9b, we now have a convoluted exegesis of both clauses!

Note: When Jesus was asked: “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?” He answered and said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (emp. jhb; Matthew 22:36-40).

Question: Is this “second” commandment any less factual, because it was “not” the specific “issue” that Jesus was asked about? How ridiculous to even think such a thought!

“We do not say that ‘it’ (post-divorce fornication, Mark 10:11, jhb) somehow gives her the right to remarry; we say that fornication is the cause that gives her the right to repudiate the fornicator-mate, and to remarry if she chooses.” Bill Reeves [A Review of Maurice Barnett’s Two Articles on Mark 10:11, 12; Bible Banner (1-31-04)]

“No one denies that adultery is committed with the second man should she marry him. Why bring up a non-issue?” Bill Reeves [A Review of Maurice Barnett’s Two Articles on Mark 10:11, 12; Bible Banner (1-31-04)]

“The context rules! The Pharisees didn’t ask about a man’s dealings with a second woman, but about a man with his wife! The only issue raised by them, and to which Jesus responded, was that of CAUSE FOR PUTTING-AWAY A WIFE. Jesus’ reply teaches that there is only ONE CAUSE, and he shows the consequence of doing what the Pharisees advocated, and of remarrying.” Bill Reeves [A Review of Maurice Barnett’s Two Articles on Mark 10:11, 12 (Some Concluding Notes Of Mine); Bible Banner (1-31-04)]

It’s amazing what tunnel vision can do to people! All they can see is “cause FOR PUTTING-AWAY A WIFE” and are absolutely blind to what Jesus taught concerning remarriage to another after one “is put away” (whether the divorce was approved or not).

“The truthfulness of the present controversy does not hinge solely on whether the phrase ‘against her’ in Mk. 10:11 has reference to the put-away wife, or to the second woman that is married by the ungodly husband. But the point that Jesus makes is that a wife can have adultery committed against her after she unlawfully has been put away by her husband. And fornication, which includes adultery, is the sole cause that Jesus gives in Mt. 19:9a that permits the innocent spouse to repudiate the fornicator-mate, and to remarry if he so desires.” Bill Reeves [A Review of Maurice Barnett’s Two Articles on Mark 10:11, 12 (Some Concluding Notes Of Mine); Bible Banner (1-31-04)]

“They believe that the man cannot commit adultery ‘against’ his wife after he puts her away for any cause, and she cannot subsequently put him away for fornication because, they say, ‘there is nothing left to put away.’ So, when they come to Mark 10:11, they say that the man commits adultery ‘against’ the second woman.

They shift the focus onto the second woman because they believe that nothing exists between the man and his wife.” Bill Reeves [A Review of Maurice Barnett’s Two Articles on Mark 10:11, 12 (Some Concluding Notes Of Mine); Bible Banner (1-31-04)]

Brother Reeves’ opponents in this present controversy know and freely acknowledge that the bond is in force after an unapproved divorce! Hence, we know that something “exists.”

However, because we say “there is nothing left to put away” after a divorce (his first sentence), he falsely accuses us of believing “that nothing exists between the man and his wife” (his second sentence). Not only is that statement a stretch, it’s absolutely absurd.

Brother Reeves draws the conclusion that if one denies the possibility for a (spiritual) bond to be affected or released after the (physical) death of a marriage (except death-Romans 7:2-3), that he does not believe in the bond’s (spiritual) existence.

If this is a logical conclusion, then brother Reeves could likewise be accused of not believing in an immortal soul, since he agrees that there is no possibility for man to affect his soul’s destination or outcome after the body’s physical death.

In the context of a “one flesh” relationship, Jesus authorized the sundering of the physical marriage for the cause extra-martial relations (Matthew 19:3-6, 9) through putting away. Jesus equated putting away with sundering the marriage relationship (Matthew 19:3, 4-6), not with sundering the bond!

“She may, for the cause of fornication, disavow him, thus repudiating him, and God will release her from the marriage bond. Released, she is free to remarry.” Bill Reeves [A Review of Maurice Barnett’s Two Articles on Mark 10:11, 12 (Some Concluding Notes Of Mine); Bible Banner (1-31-04)]

What scripture does brother Reeves give us to authorize this post-divorce “disavow” action “for the cause of” post-divorce “fornication”? What scripture (save for the cause of death of one’s bound partner, Romans 7:2-3) can be cited to show that one may be “released” from “the marriage bond” after having been put away? What passage (save for the cause of one’s bound partner’s death, Romans 7:2-3) authorizes one to remarry after they have been put away? NONE!

“There are times, however, when biblical terminology cannot be found to describe a position. After all, biblical language will not be found in support of unbiblical concepts. At such times a particular label may be necessary.” Tim Haile [The Race for the Right to Remarry; Bible Banner (1-26-04)]

“Another ‘race’ position has developed among brethren. I have labeled this new race position the ‘race-to-repudiation.’ Those who hold this view accept Thayer’s definition of apoluo (‘to dismiss, to repudiate’), but they base the right of repudiation upon whether or not the innocent party repudiated (rejected) the fornicator before the fornicator repudiated him. They emphasize timing, rather than cause.” Tim Haile [The Race for the Right to Remarry; Bible Banner (1-26-04)]

The question is: How can a person Biblically “put away” his obligated mate (i.e. sunder the “one flesh” marriage relationship, Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9) after the marriage has already been separated by divorcement, and the involved parties are “unmarried” (I Corinthians 7:10-11)? How can the “put away” who has already been dismissed “from the house” (J. H. Thayer, p. 66), “dismiss from the house” someone who no longer resides in (or is a part of) “the house”? Obviously, Jesus gave the exception clause to those who are married, not “unmarried.” See: Who Does the Exception Clause Apply To? and “It Appertaineth Not Unto Thee”

“Some brethren deny holding a race-to-the-courthouse position. They maintain that the critical time is not the time that one arrives at the courthouse relative to his mate’s arrival, but when the divorce is ‘finalized’ or ‘obtained.’ This position amounts to a ‘race-to-finalization’ or a ‘race-to-divorce-obtainment.’ One brother emphasized the time of the ‘dropping of the gavel.’ He has a ‘race-to-the-dropping-of-the-gavel.’ These views are only minor variations of the race-to-the-courthouse view, and are no better than that view.” Tim Haile [The Race for the Right to Remarry; Bible Banner (1-26-04)]

“Each spouse can put away, or repudiate, and if both do it, each one has done but one putting-away. Will anyone deny it?” Tim Haile [The Race for the Right to Remarry; Bible Banner (1-26-04)]

“From these points it is concluded that one who is ‘divorced’ in a court of law is forever forbidden the right of remarriage on the mere basis of his being ‘divorced.’ Some care not that the ‘divorced’ person is the innocent spouse of a fornicator-mate! They are concerned about divorce timing, procedure and classification, not about divorce cause.” Tim Haile [The Race for the Right to Remarry; Bible Banner (1-26-04)]

Several times within this article Tim boldly denied that there is a time frame for putting away (offering only his assertions for this conclusion). In essence, what Tim is saying is that the right for “an innocent” person to “put away” for fornication and remarry another is supreme; that it cannot be limited even by the Lord’s own decree that the “put away” commit adultery when they remarry another. 

The problem with the second “putting away” (mental divorce) theory is that it emphasizes one aspect of God’s will (the right to put away for fornication) to the exclusion of another (the subsequent, divinely-imposed consequences for those who are put away). According to the teaching of Christ in Matthew 19, there is a definite time at which one becomes put away and is precluded from remarrying another while their bound spouse lives (Romans 7:2-3).

“He claims that there are those who press for a ‘second divorce.’ (albeit ‘mental,’ according to him). Well, there are in his argumentation two divorces, but they are NOT ALIKE. There are two divorces that are ‘heteros’ (different in kind), but not two that are ‘allos’ (simply different in number but the same kind). The first one mentioned is an unscriptural one! The second one (to occur), in today’s scenario being debated, is one permitted by the Lord for the cause of fornication! Belknap adroitly calls them two ‘divorces,’ or a ‘second divorce.’ But he is careful to not clarify that one is unscriptural and that the other is scriptural; one is not approved by the Lord, and the second one is. Each spouse realized only one divorce apiece! One did not have divine authority for his, the other did!” Bill Reeves [A Review of Jeff Belknap’s Article: ‘Those Who May Marry & Those Who May Not; Bible Banner (1-24-04)]

Note: Brother Bill refers to two different distinctions for divorces by using Greek terminology, as if the Bible uses such terminology to distinguish between divorces that are consequential and those which are inconsequential. As usual, he gives no proof for his unfounded assertion (I Thessalonians 5:21). Be assured, if he had scripture to prove this point, he would name it!

No one in the course of this controversy has denied the difference between a divorce for the cause of fornication, and a divorce for a cause other than fornication. Nevertheless, scripture never teaches or infers that there are two different kinds of divorce per one bound couple. In the context of both approved and unapproved divorces, Jesus spoke of “putting away” as the act which sunders the “one flesh” relationship – nothing more or less.

In Matthew 19:4-9, Jesus taught that the original institution of marriage was not to be sundered except for fornication! When an approved sundering transpires, we know “by faith” that God will loose the bond! When an unapproved sundering transpires, the only element that man has control over (the “one flesh” relationship) has been severed. Under such circumstances, we know “by faith” that God will not loose the bond (except for death, Romans 7:2-3). 

Under no circumstances can anyone know “by faith” that one whose marriage has already been sundered has the right to “put away” for post-divorce fornication, for such is not written or implied in scripture (I Corinthians 4:6; II Corinthians 10:5).

It is also interesting to note that brother Bill himself refers to the subsequent “divorce” (the one after the dissolution of the “one flesh” relationship) as “The second one (to occur)…” (emp. jhb). Yet, he states that when I refer to it as “a second ‘putting away,’” I am being deceptive because I did not specify and differentiate the two divorces, by explaining that the first divorce was unscriptural. [As if the 2^nd (post-divorce) “putting away” for post-divorce fornication – which the Bible speaks nothing of - is scriptural.]  Amazing!

“Each spouse realized only one divorce apiece! One did not have divine authority for his, the other did!  Big difference, Jeff!” Bill Reeves [A Review of Jeff Belknap’s Article: ‘Those Who May Marry & Those Who May Not; Bible Banner (1-24-04)]

Where is the “divine authority” for a “second” sundering of a marriage that is already sundered (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9)? Assertions to not help to “prove” this so-called “authority” (I Thessalonians 5:21).

“The answer becomes obvious when we consider verses 5 and 6 of Matthew 19, together. The man and the woman are capable of sundering the one-flesh relationship, that is, the physical marriage relationship. They do this by breaking the marital vows, promises and commitments by which they had cleaved to each other in the marriage covenant. The woman of Proverbs 2:17 and the man of Malachi 2:14 had broken their covenant by forsaking their companions. Though God did not release from their covenants, yet they had violated those covenants. They “dealt treacherously” with their spouses. They had bound themselves to each other by their marriage vows, but they broke their vows. They sundered what God had not released them to sunder.” Tim Haile [Haile-Jenkins Study, Divorce & Remarriage – Haile’s Third Response (12-29-03)]

“When used of marriage, the verb ‘deo’ emphasizes God’s binding of one to his marital commitments (Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:27, 39).” Tim Haile [Haile-Jenkins Study, Divorce & Remarriage – Haile’s Third Response (12-29-03)]

The Bible does not state that God binds “one to his marital commitments,” it says “the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth” Romans 7:2.

“Matthew 19:9 does not emphasize sequence. It emphasizes consequence. However, this does not mean that there is not some logical sequence suggested in each clause of the verse. Though each clause does speak of actions that logically follow each other, yet the clauses themselves are not sequenced to each other. Each clause contains a consequence of an unlawful putting-away. The first clause states that a man commits adultery if he puts away his wife not for fornication and marries another. The second clause states that a woman commits adultery if she marries another following an unlawful putting-away. That sequence is not the point of emphasis in Matthew 19:9 is seen in the fact that the put-away woman would be just as guilty of adultery in remarriage even if the putting-away husband had not remarried!” Tim Haile [Haile-Jenkins Study, Divorce & Remarriage – Haile’s Third Response (12-29-03)]

“You wrote:

‘Fornication committed after the total rejection does not change the fact that Jesus stated – he who marries a woman who was put away where no fornication had been committed commits adultery.’

This quote reflects our basic disagreement. You see being ‘put away’ as a status – I see it as a consequence. Being rejected by a godless mate does not does nullify the innocent person’s God-given right to put away his mate for fornication and marry another! There is no race-to-repudiation, as your position maintains! The put-away woman is prohibited remarriage, not on the basis of her being the first one to be rejected, but on the basis that she did not have the scriptural cause for putting away.” Tim Haile [Haile-Jenkins Study, Divorce & Remarriage – Haile’s Third Response (12-29-03)]

The question is: How can a person Biblically “put away” his obligated mate (i.e. sunder the “one flesh” marriage relationship, Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9) after the marriage has already been separated by divorcement, and the involved parties are “unmarried” (I Corinthians 7:10-11)?

“Your position places a premium on a certain kind of fornication. Your position says fornication is significant only if it is committed before the fornicator rejects his mate! Your position renders fornication entirely irrelevant if it is committed after the fornicator has already departed from his bound mate. Jesus placed no such premium on the timing of a mate’s fornication.” Tim Haile [Haile-Jenkins Study, Divorce & Remarriage – Haile’s Third Response (12-29-03)]

“You say that the woman of Matthew 19:9 is ineligible to remarry on the mere basis of her being rejected (put-away) by her godless, covenant-breaking mate. Your position says that his subsequent fornication is rendered irrelevant on the basis that it was committed after he had already rejected her.” Tim Haile [Haile-Jenkins Study, Divorce & Remarriage – Haile’s Third Response (12-29-03)]

“You said,

‘And fornication that is committed after the putting away can not possibly be the cause of the putting away!’

After whose putting away, brother Jenkins? Are you talking about the putting-away done by the godless mate, or the putting-away done by the innocent party? The fornication can still be the cause of putting away for the innocent party, even if it was committed after the fornicator had already departed. Jesus gave the innocent party the right to put away his mate for fornication and marry another. Your assertion that such a putting away cannot be done is your own assumption. Matthew 19:9 speaks of an innocent spouse putting away his bound mate for fornication. I will assume that you do believe that the marriage bond remains intact after an unlawful putting-away? If the bond remains, then the innocent spouse has the right to put the guilty fornicator away and marry another.” Tim Haile [Haile-Jenkins Study, Divorce & Remarriage – Haile’s Third Response (12-29-03)]

“A man can prove anything in a discussion if he is allowed to fabricate definitions for the terms he is discussing. Where would you go in the Bible to prove that ‘apoluo speaks of sundering a relationship?’” Tim Haile [Haile-Jenkins Study, Divorce & Remarriage – Haile’s Third Response (12-29-03)]

When Jesus was asked about the lawfulness of putting away “for every cause” (Matthew 19:3), He equated it with putting asunder (chorizo) what God had joined together (Matthew 19:4-6). Moreover, the same word (chorizo) was used to describe a wife wrongfully departing from her husband, which caused those who were “married” [gameo (I Corinthians 7:10)] to become “unmarried” [agamos (I Corinthians 7:11)]. Who is fabricating definitions?

“You are making what I call the marital status argument. You are teaching that putting away rights are based upon the physical status or togetherness of the marriage relationship, not upon fornication committed by one’s mate. If you are correct, then your position is not really concerned with when the fornicator committed his fornication, whether before or after his departure, but is concerned with whether or not the innocent party beat the fornicator to some pronouncement of repudiation. Belknap’s position turns the Lord’s teaching into a race to the courthouse. Your teaching turns it into a race to repudiation.” Tim Haile [Haile-Jenkins Study, Divorce & Remarriage – Haile’s Third Response (12-29-03)]

How can it be “a race to the courthouse” when there was no fornication committed before the marriage was sundered by one who wrongfully put away? Those who serve God are not going to seek to put away - much less “race” to do so – when their mate has not even committed fornication!   The original reference to “race to the courthouse” depicts the circumstance in which fornication has been committed during the martial relationship with the idea that whoever files first gets the divorce! “Belknap’s position” has never been that the innocent party may not counter for the cause of fornication while the “one flesh” relationship is intact. See: My Personal Convictions

Tim seeks to expand the original meaning of the “race to the courthouse” to include those who oppose post-divorce “putting away” with those who (in previous years), denied innocent “one flesh” marriage partners the ability to counter when their fornicating spouse was the first to file. 

Similarly, he seeks to limit the original meaning of “the waiting game” to the sole situation in which both partners mutually agree to the unapproved divorce and then one waits for the other to sin.

The previously-recognized and accepted meanings of these terms clearly identify brother Haile (and those who teach similarly) as proponents of the “waiting game.” Moreover these terms would not recognize those who teach as I do (that a put away one has no ability to “put away”) as “race to the courthouse” proponents. However, brother Haile’s redefinitions seek to rewrite the historical meanings of these terms to his advantage. 

“You asked where the Bible speaks of one putting away his marriage vows. The Bible speaks of one putting away his mate by refusing to fulfill his marriage vows (Matt. 19:5, 6). Where does the Bible speak of one putting away his mate by putting space between himself and his mate?” Tim Haile [Haile-Jenkins Study, Divorce & Remarriage – Haile’s Third Response (12-29-03)]

“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.” Tim Haile [Good Question: “Who Is Adding Provisos?;” Bible Banner (12-10-03)]

“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!” Tim Haile [Good Question: “Who Is Adding Provisos?;” Bible Banner (12-10-03)]

“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.” Tim Haile [Good Question: “Who Is Adding Provisos?;” Bible Banner (12-10-03)]

“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.’” Tim Haile [Good Question: “Who Is Adding Provisos?;” Bible Banner (12-10-03)]

“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.” Tim Haile [Good Question: “Who Is Adding Provisos?;” Bible Banner (12-10-03)]

“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.” Tim Haile [Good Question: “Who Is Adding Provisos?;” Bible Banner (12-10-03)]

“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?” Tim Haile [Good Question: “Who Is Adding Provisos?;” Bible Banner (12-10-03)]

“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!” Tim Haile [Good Question: “Who Is Adding Provisos?;” Bible Banner (12-10-03)]

“Paul’s concern here is not over the status of dead husbands; he is speaking of the consequence if a woman marries another man while her husband yet lives.

The Greek word for ‘husband’ in Romans 7:2 is the same word for ‘man’ in verse 3. The only difference is that the ‘husband’ (man) was her (possessive pronoun) man, and the other man was not her man. He was ‘another’ (Gr. heteros) man to whom she was not bound. In order to explain the nature of the marriage bond, the Holy Spirit, using a subjunctive construction, speaks of the woman’s husband as ‘her man.’” Tim Haile [Haile-Jenkins Study, Divorce & Remarriage – Haile’s Second Response (11-17-03)]

“His sexual relationship with this put-away woman was adulterous, not because he married a woman whose husband had beaten her to repudiation before committing adultery against her, but because her husband had not committed adultery against her at all.

Jesse, you should try your sequence theory on Mark 10:11-12. You will find yourself having to admit the ability of a woman to put away her husband after she has already been put away by him! Of course, I reiterate my objection to the sequencing of all actions in these passages. I am merely showing the consequences of your argument.” Tim Haile [Haile-Jenkins Study, Divorce & Remarriage – Haile’s Second Response (11-17-03)]

“I deny that a godless mate’s fornication is rendered irrelevant merely because it is committed after he has already departed from his innocent mate. The rejection of one’s innocent mate does not eliminate that innocent mate’s right to do what Jesus said he can do (Matt. 19:9a).” Tim Haile [Haile-Jenkins Study, Divorce & Remarriage – Haile’s Second Response (11-17-03)]

“According to these widely used translations, the man in verse 11 commits adultery ‘against her.’ The ‘her’ cannot be the other woman; it must refer to the man’s bound wife. Thus, the man’s adultery is said to be against his wife even though it was committed after he had put her away.” Tim Haile [Mark 10:11, 12: Greek Texts, Pronouns and Antecedents; Bible Banner, Also sent out to “Undisclosed-Recipients” (11-1-03)]

See: The Barnett SmelserExchange.htm

Even if the Lord had stated that the adultery was “against” the original spouse, where does He authorize a second “putting away” and remarriage for the put away victim of wrongful divorcement (cf. II Peter 1:3)? After Jesus irrefutably taught that a man has the ability to accomplish an unapproved sundering of his marriage (Matthew 19:6; Luke 16:18), he also revealed the consequence of remarriage to another by the one who was put away under such conditions: “and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matthew 19:9; cf. Luke 16:18).  Hence, the only authorized alternatives after an unapproved divorce are to reconcile (I Corinthians 7:11) or become a eunuch “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (Matthew 19:12a; I Corinthians 7:11). “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it” (Matthew 19:12b; cp. w. I Corinthians 4:6; II John 9)!

Mark 10:11-12 (or any other text for that matter) says absolutely nothing regarding a second divorce and authorized remarriage to “another” for the one who is wrongfully put away, when adultery transpires AFTER the fact of divorcement (cf. Acts 15:24; Galatians 1:6-9).

The Bible teaches that when one commits fornication / adultery, they sin “against” various persons and things. David’s adultery constituted sin against God (II Samuel 12:13) as well as against Bathsheba and Uriah, fornication is a sin against one’s own body (I Corinthians 6:18), homosexuality is a sin against nature (Romans 1:26), and there are sins which become sins against the brethren (cf. I Corinthians 8:12), especially when they are of a public nature (cf. Ephesians 5:3).

As we consider the assorted sins “against” others when one commits fornication / adultery, it is clear that inspiration is revealing the harm that such a sin causes to God, ourselves, and others. I would accept the implication that subsequent adultery after the fact of wrongful divorcement would also be a sin “against” one’s bound mate, but to assert that Mark 10:11 “must refer to the man’s bound wife” is not only without merit, it is wrong.

Moreover, this in no way authorizes a second putting away which is not revealed, regardless of what seems “right” in our own eyes (Cp. Deuteronomy 12:8 w. 13:18; Proverbs 14:12).

In spite of brother Tim’s bold assertion that “The ‘her’ cannot be the other woman; it must refer to the man’s bound wife,” in his conclusion he wrote, “However, if it is incorrectly translated, and the adultery is ‘with’ the ‘another,’ rather than ‘against’ the ‘wife,’ it does not detract from my position.”

“Some brethren are teaching that a man’s adultery is rendered totally irrelevant if it is committed after his departure from his wife or after he has taken some ungodly divorce action against her. Not so! According to Mark 10:11, the man’s adultery is still against his bound wife even when it is committed after he puts her away. According to Matthew 19:9a, fornication provides the scriptural cause that allows the innocent spouse to put away his guilty mate with God’s approval. Thus, the put-away wife of Mark 10:11 has the God-given right to put away her adulterous husband and marry another without committing adultery.” Tim Haile [Mark 10:11, 12: Greek Texts, Pronouns and Antecedents; Bible Banner, Also sent out to “Undisclosed-Recipients” (11-1-03)]

“Feel free to share my responses to you with any and all whom you choose.” Tim Haile [Haile-Jenkins Study, Divorce & Remarriage – Haile’s First Response (10-26-03)]

“The Bible uses the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ to refer to the marriage bond:” Tim Haile [Haile-Jenkins Study, Divorce & Remarriage – Haile’s First Response (10-26-03)]

Evidently, brother Haile is unaware of several passages to the contrary: Acts 5:9 says that Ananias was dead when Peter stated, “the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door” (emp. jhb).  Matthew 22:24-30; Romans 7:3 and I Corinthians 7:39 clearly teach that, upon the death of one spouse, the marriage is dissolved. Yet, in such cases, the Bible uses the terms, “husband” and “wife” in reference to both the partner who died and the remaining spouse.

Similarly, in John 4:15-18, although the Lord asked the woman to summon her “husband,” Jesus and the woman later agreed that the man she was with was not really her husband. Moreover, in John 4:18 the Lord said to this woman, “For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband.”

Cf. II Sam. 12:15, “And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.” Cp. w. II Sam. 11:26; 12:9-10

Cf. Mt. 22:24-25, “Saying, Maste