Truth Magazine

By Glen W. Lovelady

Proposition: The Scriptures teach that the put-away fornicator can marry another without committing sin.

Since this will be my last article in this exchange, I want to thank brother Willis for allowing this discussion to take place and also I want to thank brother Caldwell for his willingness to participate in this debate. We are both hoping that this effort will be of some value to you the reader, as you try to come to grips with this issue. I will not have a chance to respond to brother Caldwell’s final article, so I ask you to read carefully what I have had to say throughout this series and make the proper application.

Brother Caldwell has established two methods of being joined, “bound by a yoke” and also “bound by the law.” Not so, brother Caldwell, because those who are married are bound with a yoke because they are bound by the law. When you are no longer bound with a yoke, then you can no longer be bound by the law, and vice-versa. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Brother Caldwell also said, “She might disregard the law, leave her husband and marry another while her husband lives. If she does so, then she is an adulteress not only because she is still bound to her husband (yoked), but also because she is still bound under the law of God.” That is correct brother Caldwell; while she was bound to her husband she was still “bound by the law to her husband” (Rom. 7:2). But when her husband puts her away for fornication, she would no longer be yoked or bound to him or to the law that bound her to him. She would be released from him and from the law that bound her to him. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Brother Caldwell also stated that my analogy of the two hands held together did not provide for the hand of God. God’s hand was never in there. If brother Caldwell would just go by what it says in Romans 7:2 we would not have this problem. I believe what the Bible states, “the two shall become one” (Matt. 19:5). “The woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he liveth” (Rom. 7:2) or until there is a putting away for fornication (Matt. 19:9). God binds the two of them together like a farmer binds his two oxen together in a yoke. Neither the farmer nor his hand is in the yoke. It is not a threesome yoke, as brother Caldwell asserts, but “the two shall become one.” When the husband is no longer bound to the wife, the wife is no longer bound to the husband; they are then loosed from one another. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Brother Caldwell then stated, “While it is true that God releases one who puts away a fornicating mate, Jesus also said, and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Brother Caldwell doesn’t know who she is, but Jesus plainly states that she is the one who was put away not for fornication, and we certainly agree that she would commit adultery if she remarried, because she was still bound to her husband. She could not be a put away fornicator because adultery is only committed when one is a mate to someone else. The put away fornicator has no mate. It would be impossible for him to commit adultery against his former spouse (Mk. 10:11) because the definition of the word adultery, is very clear and specific in its application. My position harmonizes with the Scriptures and the definition of adultery, while brother Caldwell and those who stand with him, must add to the Scriptures and then violate the definition of adultery to sustain their position. If we would all abide by what is said in the New Testament and accept the definition of adultery established by all scholars, we would be on our way to reconciling some of our differences on this matter. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Brother Caldwell says the issue is not, “whether the divorced fornicator is still a spouse, but whether Jesus authorizes him to marry another without becoming an adulterer.” Brother Caldwell, he couldn’t commit adultery against his former spouse because he is no longer her spouse. Please find out what the definition of adultery is and then apply it. You brethren define it properly, and then turn right around and violate it. Then you cut us off and call us false teachers on this issue. If the put away fornicator is still bound to a mate, I concede; but if not, then you need to concede. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Brother Caldwell tells us that in the Old Testament God restricted certain ones from doing certain things, and that is right. Now, where in the New Testament does God restrict the put away fornicator from doing anything? I affirm he can plant corn, eat apple pie, go to church, have a marriage if someone would have him, and go to heaven when he dies, if and when he gets right with God. If you can find a passage that restricts the put away fornicator from doing any of this, I will concede. If you can’t find the passage, then you need to concede and let him get on with his life. We need to help him and all other sinners get right with God and enjoy the blessings of humanity, even marriage. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

The put away fornicator is no longer bound to a mate, and the New Testament states that those who are loosed from a mate can marry without committing sin (1 Cor. 7:27-28) and I agree; but brother Caldwell tells us that there is a third choice. He wants us to believe that the put away fornicator is loose from his mate, but not loose from the law that bound him to his mate. That is not what the New Testament says and besides that it doesn’t make any sense. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Then brother Caldwell asks the question “Is the guilty fornicator to rest his eternal salvation on an implication which assumes that because the one who puts away for fornication is free (loosed), the put away fornicator must also be freed.” If only brother Caldwell would understand that God bound these two together until she put him away for fornication, and then God freed her from him, and common sense dictates that he is loose from her. They were bound together and now they are loose from each other. That can’t be made any clearer. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Brother Caldwell takes issues with my earlier statement, “. . . the New Testament does not deal with the put away fornicator.” “Response: Why then affirm that ‘The Scriptures teach. . .’?” We must have authority for everything that we say or do (Col. 3:17) and since we have no cominand that the put away fornicator must remain celibate, and since we have no example of any put away fornicator in the New Testament being restricted to a life of celibacy, then we have no choice but to rely upon the implication. The implication is found in Matthew 19:9, where Jesus said, “except it be for fornication,” in which “it” makes reference to the kind o~f putting away. Thus Jesus makes a difference between a putting away not for fornication, and a putting away for fornication. If your putting away was not for fornication, then you have no right to marry another because you are still bound to your mate (a putting away not for fornication does not break the bond). If your putting away was for fornication, then your bond has been broken between husband and wife (a putting awayfor fornication does break the bond). This is the implication in Matthew 19:9, and why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

The other implication that we have is found in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 where Paul said, “Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned.” The implication is, the put a vay fornicator is loose from his former mate. In the light of these implications I cannot go against them without a direct confirmation from God restricting the put away fornicator to a life of celibacy. Since a restriction can’t be found in the New Testament, you had better let him marry if someone would have him. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

You were right to quote my earlier statement, brother Caldwell, because as you so aptly pointed out, “and neither did he leave it to us to decide who is loosed.” That is correct! For we know from the example of 1 Corinthians 7:11 exactly who is bound in a marriage . . . because she was told to be reconciled to her husband or remain unmarried (to another), because she still had a husband and thus was still bound by the law to her husband. So you can see that she was not loosed from her husband. Is the put away fornicator bound to a mate, or loosed from a mate? I affirm that the put away fornicator is loosed from a mate because his putting away wasfor fornication (Matt. 19:9), and since he is loosed from a mate he can marry another without committing sin (1 Cor. 7:27-28). Using the proper definition of adultery, we know that he could not commit adultery against her because she is no longer his mate. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Brother Caldwell makes a parallel between instrumental music and the put away fornicator. We all agree that Ephesians 5:19 tells us to sing and that excludes instrumental music. But nowhere does the New Testament speak about what the put away fornicator can or cannot do. Please go back to my first article and re-read what brother McGarvey and brother Whiteside had to say about this. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

You brethren keep reading “only the innocent” into Matthew 19:9 as though the “innocent” one is the only one allowed to remarry. Jesus never said it. The only reason why she can remarry is because she is no longer a spouse. Jesus did say that all who married, divorced and remarried would commit adultery, “except it be for fornication.” The put away fornicator would have to come under this exception and based upon this proper application and implication, we agree with brother J.W. McGarvey, of 1875, and brother R.L. Whiteside, of 1939, and a whole host of godly men who disagree with brother Caldwell and those with him. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me.

Brother Caldwell cries out, “Give us Scripture . . . that he is in fact loosed by God.” And we respond, “To whom is he bound? God has already explained that the husband was bound only to her (Matt. 19:5), and Romans 7:2, “Bound by the law to her husband.” If the innocent mate is freed from the guilty, then the guilty must of necessity be loosed from the innocent. Why you brethren can’t see this point is beyond me. I rest my case.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, pp. 52-53
January 17, 1991

By Glen W. Lovelady

Proposition: The Scriptures teach that the put-away fornicator can marry another without committing sin.

I have been invited by the editor of this paper to write three articles on this very controversial subject. I want to thank him for this opportunity. I understand that brother Colly Caldwell of Tampa, Florida, the Dean and Vice-President of Florida College will be my respondent. I am both honored and impressed by this invitation. I handed in two propositions, but they have decided only to deal with the put-away fornicator.

I am excited about reading and hearing that many preachers today are now coming forth about the person who was put-away unjustly having a recourse, because Civil Law cannot take away his/her God-given right according to Matthew 19:9, which allows this person to put his spouse away for fornication when adultery is committed. Brother Marshall Patton debated her rights in the Searching the Scriptures back in 1987. So don’t tell me debates don’t do any good, for we are making a lot of head-way. You can read what I had to say about this in the Smith-Lovelady Debate held in 1976 (pp. 32-35, 119-123). Many preachers say that they agree on this point but will not come out of the closet because of peer pressure. God help us! Preachers need to speak out and encourage men like brother Patton and maybe we can turn this thinking around. Maybe there is hope for us yet!

Now to our subject, does the put-away fornicator have any rights? I am not writing this article or debating this issue because he is some kind of a hero or even a person worthy of my effort. Every put-away fornicator will spend eternity in Hell, except he repents and is baptized in the case of the alien sinner (Acts 2:38) or prays after he repents as a member of the church (Acts 8:22). 1 am only dealing with this issue because I believe that many are guilty of making a law in this matter.

Foy E. Wallace said it this way [Sermon on the Mount, p. 411: “The preacher has no course of action revealed, and to establish one would result in human legislation, more far reaching evil consequences than the moral effects of divorcement limited to the person involved.”

Now to the proposition for discussion. I affirm that the Scripture (the Bible) teaches (imparts information by implication) that the put-away fornicator (the one who was divorced because of unfaithfulness) can marry another without committing sin (since he is no longer bound in a marriage and since he is no longer a spouse, then he would not commit adultery if he chose to remarry). I believe that he is guilty of adultery from his past action, but since his former spouse has put him away for fornication, they are no longer married. The marriage-bond has been destroyed or dissolved and based upon that fact he is free to marry another without committing adultery.

You ask, “Where is the authority for the put-away fornicator to marry?” Jesus, in Matthew 21:23-24, answered by saying, “I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell me, I in likewise will tell you.” “Where is the authority for him to do anything?” Brother Ron Halbrook said in his debate with brother Jack Freeman that this person “doesn’t have the right to do anything.” If he/she doesn’t have the right/authority to do anything, then he has no rights at all. He cannot plant corn, eat pie, go to church services, or have a marriage according to this line of reasoning. If we are not going to take him behind the church building and hang him high, then this person has the same human rights that we have, and that is why he can plant corn, eat pie, go to church services, and have a marriage. Show me a passage that authorizes the put-away fornicator to plant corn and then I will give you a passage that authorizes him to have a marriage.

I am not the only one who understands that the New Testament does not deal with the put-away fornicator. I call to witness:

J.W. McGarvey: “Whether it would be adultery to marry a woman who had been put away on account of fornication, is neither affirmed nor denied. No doubt such a woman is at liberty to marry again if she can, seeing that the bond which bound her to her husband is broken ” (Commenting on Matthew and Mark [1875], p. 165).

R.L. Whiteside: “(A) Evidently had a right to marry again. So far as I know, this may have been given (B) [the put-away fornicator] a right to marry also. On that point no one can speak with authority, for nothing is said about it. – If you are in doubt as to the conduct of another, give him the benefit of the doubt” (Reflection, p. 411).

Foy E. Wallace: “With no course of action legislated, revealed or prescribed, we cannot make one without human legislation. It is certain, however, that if the Lord Jesus Christ had intended a course of action in these cases, he would not have left it for preachers to prescribe, but would have Himself legislated it” (Sermon on the Mount, p. 41).

The only restraint of law in the New Testament about who cannot marry are those who are already bound in a marriage. In Matthew 5:32; 19:9 Jesus stated that all who remarry after divorce will commit adultery, except it (the divorce) is for fornication. Since his divorce was for fornication, he would not commit adultery if he remarried. A divorce for fornication does to the marriage bond, what death does to it. Whatever you have against, or can say against the put-away fornicator, you can apply the same reasoning to the man who killed his wife.

Please consider the scenarios below.

Death

Bill got drunk one night and killed his wife. He had to go to jail for manslaughter. After fulfilling his sentence, he came out of prison, after years of agony over the loss of his marriage.

The Put-Away Fornicator

Bob had an affair one night and his wife put him away for fornication, His wife remarried and he cried over the loss of his marriage and his family for about the same time that Bill spent in prison.

1. They both (Bill and Bob) obey the gospel of Christ.

2. They were both guilty of putting asunder what God had joined together.

3. Bill was guilty of killing his wife, while Bob was guilty of fornication.

4. But now they are forgiven (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

5. They were bound in a marriage, but now they are “loose from a wife” (1 Cor. 7:27-28). What sin would they commit if they remarried?

They could not be guilty of committing adultery because all the scholars agree on the definition of adultery “unlawful sexual intercourse with the spouse of another.” Neither of these men has a spouse, and based upon this fact, we have no business charging them with the sin of adultery if and when they do remarry.

God did not leave it up to you and me to decide who should be allowed to marry, or marry another as long as they are “loose from a wife/husband. ” In the special issue of this paper dated January 4, 1990, brother Bill Cavender said, “The innocent party must be sure that he or she is really innocent and did not by temperment, evil words, ugly attitudes, hurtful deeds, and a malignant spirit, drive hislher companion to distraction, distress, unhappiness, and then unfaithfulness.”

So we ask, “Will the real innocent mate please stand up?” I remember brother Luther Blackmon telling me many years ago, that he felt that he could not remarry after his wife ran off with another man. He felt guilty, in some way of contributing to the situation, thereby sharing the guilt; as a result, he was not innocent in his own mind. I told him that I could live with his decision, but that I did not want him forcing his opinion on me, if my wife ran off with another man. In Romans 7:3 Paul stated that if you are still bound in a marriage, then you would commit adultery if you married another. That is the same restraint as found in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. Romans 7:14 does not apply to the putaway fornicator because he is not bound in a marriage.

The next passage is found in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. Paul states that if you are divorced, not for fornication, then you are to remain unmarried (to another), or be reconciled to your spouse. Marrying another, while in this condition, causes one to commit adultery, because you still have a spouse! This does not apply to the put-away fornicator, since he is no longer a spouse, and has no spouse. The next passage is found in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28. Paul states that if you are “loosed from a wife,” then you would not sin if you married. This passage does apply to the put-away fornicator, because he is no longer “bound to a wife.” He is “loosed from a wife.”

We can put ourselves through all kinds of mental gymnastics and generate many different opinions about the put-away fornicator, but when all is said and done, we will still be faced with the principle, that he is loosed from a spouse, and can remarry without committing adultery, whether you like it or not! Of course, we must of necessity recognize his responsibility to “marry in the Lord,” or more specifically, to marry one that is free to marry him. Brother Cecil Douthitt pointed this out many years ago, stating that this adverbial phrase tells one “how” to marry, not to “whom.” The same phrase can be found in Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:18; and this one in 1 Corinthians 7:39. I am aware that brethren make a “law” about the application of this passage just as they have about the put-away fornicator; but I have no certain interest in man-made laws or opinions. I have enough to do trying to keep up with the Laws of God.

According to brother Cavender, not even the innocent one can remarry, unless he/she was really innocent, and I mean flawless. Do you now see why God did not leave this up to you and me? All God said was this: “Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned” (1 Cor. 7:27-28). Who is loosed from a wife is all we need to figure out. If one is loose from a wife, then he can marry without sin.

The one that is “loose from a wife” is no longer “bound to a wife” and if you are not “bound to a wife” then you are free to have one, and this is God’s way for us to avoid fornication (1 Cor. 7:2). 1 affirm that the put-away fornicator is “loosed from a wife.” What do you say? I only know of two answers: Bound or Loose. In Hebrews 13:4, God says, “Marriage is honorable in all, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” “No need for that Lord, because some brethren have already decided on who can have a marriage.” God forbid! I plead with you brethren, stay out of God’s business. Better yet, let the put-away fornicator read this debate and let him decide for himself, for he alone must give account of himself before God (Rom. 14:12).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, pp. 44-45
January 17, 1991

By Thomas F. Eaves, Sr.

Webster defines watchdog as a dog kept to guard property. A dog that guards against loss, waste, theft, or undesirable practices. A watchdog is a dog which guards against the loss of something valuable.

One of the most valuable things in our world today is the Gospel. It is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), calls sinners to God (2 Thess. 2:14), and produces faith in the hearts of God’s creatures (Rom. 10:17).

The apostle Paul recognized that some were false brethren (2 Cor. 11:26), and that some would depart from the truth (1 Tim. 4:1-5; 2 Tim. 4:14). This great teacher of God’s word charged that men not teach a different doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3) than that which came from God (Gal. 1:8-10). Some erred concerning the truth and were rebuked by Paul (2 Tim. 2:17-18). These were identified by name and their false doctrine condemned in keeping with Paul’s own instructions in Romans 16:17.

Paul rebuked sin (Gal. 5:19-21), false teachers (2 Tim. 4:3), hypocritical Christians (2 Tim. 3:1-5) and erring brethren (Gal. 2:11). The great man of God defended God’s doctrine of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15; Acts 23:6), grace (Rom. 5:206:4), and the New Covenant of Jesus Christ (Gal. 4:21-31). Paul acted through love (Eph. 4:15), conviction (1 Cor. 9:16, Acts 20:27), and was guarding God’s word from loss, waste, theft, and undesirable practices.

He sums up his activities on this earth, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith” (2 Tim. 4:7). Today when faithful preachers follow the example of Paul some cry, “Brotherhood Watchdogs.”

Several months ago when Randy Mayeux (Preacher for the Preston Road Church of Christ) made the statement, “I have preached and believed that the New Testament teaches that salvation is a free gift of God, period. You are saved by grace alone,” several brethren pointed out that salvation is not by anything alone. The Bible teaches that the sinner is saved by: Grace (Eph. 2:8), Mercy (Tit. 3:5), Jesus Christ (Matt. 1:21), Life of Christ (Rom. 5:10), Blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9), Gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:4), Faith (Rom. 5:1), Word (Jas. 2:24), Calling on the Lord (Rom. 10:13), Baptism (1 Pet. 3:2 1), Hope (Rom. 8:24), and sinners save themselves (Acts 2:40). When such inconsistency is pointed out, instead of honoring God’s word the cry goes forth “Brotherhood watchdogs!”

Larry James’ (Preacher for the Richardson East congregation in Richardson, Texas) statement, “And so I would conclude that to praise God from the heart with an instrument of music is not wrong, it’s not sinful nor will it result in anyone being lost, and to condemn someone who uses such an approach I think is a terrible mistake,” was not allowed to go unchallenged. But when compared with the truth of God’s Word (1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12; 13:15), the truth was not glorified but the cry goes forth, “Brotherhood watchdogs!”

When a college uses speakers on its lectureships who have in debates, books or recorded speeches upheld teachings which are contrary to the word of God, why are they defended and the ones who pointed out the false teachings labeled as “Brotherhood watchdogs”?

There seems to be a tendency today to defend the false teachers and condemn the contender for the faith (Jude 3). The great prophet Isaiah wrote, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Isa. 5:20). If Paul lived today would he be labeled as a “brotherhood watchdog” for rebuking Hymenaeus, Alexander, Philetus, and Peter? Where is our allegiance today? It should be with Christ and his word (Gal. 1:10).

If proving all things and holding fast to that which is good (1 Thess. 5:21), and contending earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 3) makes a brotherhood watchdog, then woof, woof!!

(Note: This article from the July-Sept. 1990 In Word and Doctrine shows that many liberal churches are having severe problems trying to keep rampant error out. The same cry, “watchdog,” is occasionally heard among conservative brethren. This is a tactic of the devil who tries to intimidate and silence his opposition. “We are not ignorant of his devices” [2 Cor. 2:11]. Ron Halbrook, 654 Gray St., West Columbia, TX 77476).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 3, pp. 64, 79
February 7, 1991

Last winter I assisted Ron Halbrook in his debate with Jack Freeman on divorce and remarriage. During that debate, I met for the first time several of the preachers from the West Coast who agreed with brother Freeman’s position on divorce and remarriage (or at least disagreed with the position held by the editor and staff writers of Guardian of Truth). Among those present was brother Glen Lovelady who ran the overhead projector for and assisted brother Freeman.

During the debate, I generally was impressed with the warm attitude manifested toward one another and the willingness to study the issues which divide us. One of the complaints which I heard was that Guardian of Truth was only publishing one side of the issue.

Although Guardian of Truth had published material representing another point of view on this subject (for example, Jerry Bassett’s material in the discussion with Weldon Warnock), neither the editor nor this paper has taken a neutral position on the divorce/remarriage controversy. Nevertheless, I wanted to give my brethren, who were so kind to me in Las Vegas, an opportunity to present their side in our pages.

Inasmuch as brother Lovelady was one who complained about only one side being published, I invited him to participate in a discussion on the subject to be published in Guardian of Truth. The result is the discussion which follows between brother Lovelady and brother Caldwell.

Both brethren have pressed their points in a gentlemanly fashion, have been co-operative on minor points of disagreement, and otherwise shown themselves to be honorable. I commend the exchange to you for your study.

Brother Lovelady desired a six article exchange which included two propositions of three exchanges each. He desired to discuss the marriages of those who had previously divorced for some reason other than fornication. He does not believe they must separate and live alone for the rest of their lives. Should there be enough interest for a second discussion, Guardian of Truth will be glad to print it. Let me hear from you.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, p. 43
January 17, 1991