Truth Magazine

By C.G. “Colly” Caldwell

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

In our first response, we called for all to recognize that any right to marry another after divorce from one’s original mate must be granted by God. That is true because “God hath joined together” (bound with a yoke-, Matt. 19:6) and because God has “bound by the law” (Rom. 7:2). Paul emphasized God’s control of the right to remarry by saying, “if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. ” She might disregard the law, leave her husband, and marry another while her husband lives. If she does, however, she is an adulteress not only because she was bound to her husband but because she was also bound by the law of God (v. 3). Therein lies the problem of the supposed “common horse-sense” illustration of two hands held together (Art. 2, Para. 13). It does not provide for the hand of God! Those who believe the guilty fornicator may marry another must show from Scripture that God who held both hands in marriage, turned the fornicator’s hand loose when he released the other!

The sole appeal to Scripture is based on two alleged “principles. ” The first affirms “that a putting away for fornication breaks the bond between the two of them” (Matt. 19:9). 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.” The issue is not whether the divorced fornicator is still a spouse but whether Jesus authorizes him to marry another without becoming an adulterer (see also Lk. 16:18; Matt. 5:32).

The second, argued from 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, assumes the thing to be proved: i.e., that the put-away fornicator is loosed by God from the constraints of law. These verses do not set forth the conditions of “loosing”! That must be determined elsewhere in Scripture. Furthermore the word “loosed” does not require either a divorce or having ever been bound. The position is actually predicated upon the reasoning that when one is loosed, the other must be loosed. Again, the issue is not simply whether one is still a spouse but whether God authorizes a proposed marriage. An example of God’s having restricted the right to marry when one was no longer the spouse of anyone is found in Moses’ law. In the case of a put-away woman who married another but whose second husband died, the Lord instructed, “Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife” (Deut. 24:4). You see, the issue turns on what God authorizes, not on whether one is now a spouse. The position states that there are only two choices (Art. 2, Para. 11, 12): mates bound to each other and mates no longer bound. There is a third choice: a putting away for fornication in which one is loosed from the constraints of God’s law and the other is not.

In the second paragraph of our first response, I said, “The issue before us involves a basic question of biblical authority. ” The proposition reads, “The Scripture teaches that the put-away fornicator can marry another without committing sin.” Please observe carefully how the proposition is defended with regard to biblical authority:

Article 1, paragraph 3: “. . . many of you are guilty of making a law.” Response: Who is making law? Law sometimes restricts. God (not we) has restricted the right to marry another. Law sometimes frees (or grants rights). God has not freed the fornicator (. . . if so, show us the passage). When one gives men a right in a restricted matter which God did not give them, it is he who is in the business of “human legislation” and it is he who must face the “far reaching evil consequences”!

Article 1, paragraph 4: With regard to the proposition, the “Scripture teaches” is defined with the phrase “imparts information by implication. ” While we all realize that God sometimes authorizes through “necessary inference,” we must ask, “Is the guilty fornicator to rest his eternal salvation on an ‘implication’ which assumes that because the one who puts away for fornication is freed (loosed), the put-away fornicator must also be freed?” That assumption is the sum and substance of the position.

Article 1, paragraph 5: In answer to the question, “Where is the authority,” it is said, “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. ” All this really says is that one has no such passage. There is no reason here to say that unless one thinks he does not need a passage! But does this provide the authority needed to marry when God has not granted the right?

Article 1, paragraph 6.- “. . . the New Testament does not deal with the put-away fornicator. ” Response: Why then affirm that “the Scriptures teach ” that he may marry another?

Article 1, paragraph 6.- “I call to witness” other brethren. Response: We want to hear from God, not the brethren. In the second article, the better part of two more paragraphs are spent defending the use of McGarvey. We will gladly examine evidence that McGarvey (six years before he died) allowed his name to be attached to a book containing “man-made laws and rules not found in the New Testament” which would later “cause him to turn over in his grave.” Nevertheless, if it is so, it proves nothing!

Article 1, paragraph 7; Article 2, paragraph 11: 46A divorce for fornication does to the marriage bond, what death does to it.” Response: It is pure assumption to claim that marriage severed by death and marriage severed by fornication are scripturally parallel. God specifically authorizes the living party to marry another after the mate dies and he specifically authorizes the one who puts away a mate for fornication to marry another. But where does he authorize thefornicator to marry another? The position compares a fornicator to a man who kills his wife. The parallel is flawed in that he fornicator has been put away (with God’s approval) and the killer has done the putting away. Again, however, if we were to grant that the killer may marry another based on Romans 7:14, that would not authorize in any way the guilty fornicator to marry another.

Article 1, paragraphs 13,9: “Some brethren have already decided on who can have a marriage.” “God did not leave it up to you and me to decide who should be allowed to marry . . . as long as they are loose. . . ” Response: Amen, and neither did he leave it to us to decide who is loosed. Do those holding this position not see that they are the ones deciding who may marry another without sin.

Article 2, paragraphs 1, 4, 10: “. . . I shall fight for them until you brethren come up with ‘a direct confirmation from God, ‘ that the put-away fornicator” cannot marry. Response: “Christian Church” preachers say, “I will fight for the instrument until you come up with ‘a direct confirmation from God’ that we cannot use it.” Such reasoning is simply an effort to shift the responsibility for having to establish the proposition by the New Testament.

Article 2, paragraph 3.- “Let God deal with the put-away fornicator as he wishes, but let’s not jeopardize our relationship, fellowship and salvation over him.” Response: shall we say this about those divorced and remarried for causes other than fornication?

Article 2, paragraph 5: ‘You all have gone beyond a ‘thus saith the Lord… and “in light of 1 Timothy 4:3” (which condemns “forbidding to marry,” cgc), “I will have no part in it.” Response: “Does one ‘forbid to marry’ when he refuses to accept that those divorced for causes other than fornication may marry others?” This accents the fact that this position advocates granting the right of marriage to fornicators while denying it to many non-fornicators!

Article 2, paragraph 10; Article 1, paragraph 1]: “The New Testarnent does speak about ‘the right’ of one who is ‘loose from a wife’ (1 Cor. 7:27-28).” “This passage does apply to the put-away fornicator.” This position needs to clarify whether it will argue that the Scripture speaks about the guilty fornicator or not. Article 2, paragraph 9 says, “I told him in thefirst article that the New Testament does not deal with him. It doesn’t say he can and it likewise doesn’t say he can’t. ” The position wants it both ways. If the Scriptures do not say “he can” the position is surrendered by default. Remember, the proposition reads, “The Scripture teaches that the put-away fornicator can marry another without committing sin.”

Article 2, paragraph 13: “We reason that he can marry only because he is ‘loose from a wife’ (1 Cor. 7:27-28).” Response: Give us Scripture (not human reasoning) that he is in fact loosed by God.

Article 2, paragraph 15.- “If he is fit for heaven he would be fit for marriage, if he is ‘loose from a wife.”‘ Response: Is a righteous Christian whose husband put her away for some cause other than fornication, fit for heaven? May she marry again? I am reminded again of “Christian Church” preachers who argue, “If the instrument is fit for heaven, it is fit for the church.” Once more, the thing to be proved is whether God has loosed this man.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, pp. 50-51
January 17, 1991

By Larry Ray Hafley

Many Scriptures testify to the suffering of our Lord Jesus (1 Pet. 2:21; 3:18; 4:1). We cannot imagine the depths of his pain and agony. However, that is not our duty. It is not our responsibility to conjecture or to sense his physical, mental and emotional torment and trauma. It is, rather, our task to partake in “the fellowship of his sufferings” (Phil. 3:10). We must share in the provisions, the blessings, that resulted from his sufferings. One might have himself mocked, spat on, beaten and crucified in order to parallel Christ’s abuse and death. This would not, though, allow one to participate in the true sufferings of Christ.”

The only way one may truly share in his sufferings is to receive the grace that his sacrifice secured. “Being made conformable unto his death” (Phil. 3:10) does not require literal, physical crucifixion. It does demand literal, spiritual crucifixion (Gal. 2:20; 6:14). The old man must be put to death. The body of sin must be shed and the new man must be put on (Eph. 4:22-24; Rom. 6:3-6; Col. 2:12,13; 3:1-10).

Christians have communion, fellowship, partnership, in the body and blood of the Son of God. This is no light matter. It is a supreme, sublime privilege (1 Cor. 10:16-21). Indeed, it is proper to reflect and remember the Lord’s death and its shame and humiliation (1 Cor. 11). Because of that, we are bound to look unto Jesus and consider him, “lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds” (Heb. 12:2-4).

One may despise the blood of the covenant and crucify to himself the Son of God afresh (Heb. 6:6; 10:29). This is not true appreciation. It is apostasy, abandonment. It is to join the mob that called for his death. It is to beat and spit on him again. Would you consider such a literal course of action? Would you voluntarily participate in killing Christ? God forbid! That is what we do when we obey lust and sin.

Sin and its consequences are bad enough, but the thought of crucifying the Lord makes it unbearable. Our sins put him on the cross once, and that is enough! God grant that we never do it again. Live unto him. Die unto the world. Be raised to walk in newness of life, never to die again. That is why Jesus suffered, and it is sufficient.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, p. 41
January 17, 1991

By C.G. “Colly” Caldwell

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

I join brother Lovelady in expressing appreciation for the opportunity to openly study his affirmation that “the put-away fornicator can marry another without committing sin.” I pray that all will clearly see God’s will as a result of this exchange and thus that the Lord will be glorified.

We want to get to the heart of the issue immediately. Does God give the “right” of marrying another to one who has been divorced because of fornication? The Pharisees who came to Jesus prefaced their question about divorce with the phrase, “Is it lawful. . . ?” Whether or not they sincerely cared for God’s will, they learned that Jesus would require a “thus-saith-the-Lord.” He appealed to Scripture (Matt. 19:4-6). By so doing, he let them know that God controls the “rights” regarding marriage. While we may sympathize with a man or woman who may not marry another, we must trust God to set forth his will in keeping with his infinite wisdom. No “rights” regarding marriage may be presumed. If persons who have been married have the “right” to marry another, it is because God has set forth the conditions of it. Otherwise, there is no “right”! The issue before us involves a basic question of biblical authority! Your position will reflect your approach to authority, how you deal with the silence of God in Scripture.

In Matthew 19:5-6, Jesus clearly affirms that the One who obligates married persons is God. He first says that “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife” (Matt. 19:5). The word “joined” (from kollao) is in the passive voice (kollethesetai), indicating that the subject is acted upon. The next verse (6) tells us that it is God who acts to bind the two parties with regard to marriage. Another word is used to emphasize that it is God who does the binding (a form of sunzeugnumi: sun, with; zeugnomi, to connect or join with a yoke). This yoking takes place in the mind of God and until released by him, none may be yoked to another. The question is not whether we can rationalize that when one is freed from a marriage both are free because there is no longer a marriage. The question is whether God releases the fornicating person from being bound by law not to marry another and whether he is willing to make another bond or yoke in his mind joining that person to someone else. If so, we had best have some direct confirmation from God!

Paul firmly establishes the point in Romans 7. Verse I says that “the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives. ” Verse 2 adds, “For the women which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth. ” The word “bound” is dedetai, a passive voice verb. That which “bound” her is “the law.” The Lawgiver is God. Who decides if she is loosed from being bound by the law? God alone can loose her. His law from the beginning has bound married persons and restricted them from marrying another until the death of their mates. He has made but one exception to that: the one who puts away his wife for fornication may marry another without being guilty of sin (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). God has released no other to marry someone else!

In response to brother Lovelady’s comparison, I would remind my brother that the Bible teaches that God expects certain physical consequences to attend killing one’s wife. We are not debating that, however. Perhaps the question should be asked if brother Lovelady thinks there are no restrictive consequences for the great sin of adultery? Apparently not. Nevertheless, this is not an issue of punishment. It is an issue of God’s authority and whether he has released the put-away fornicator to marry another.

Brother Lovelady assumes that Paul’s statements in Romans 7 do not apply to our discussion. He further assumes that the put-away fornicator is included among those Paul refers to as being “loosed from a wife” (1 Cor. 7:27). Paul could well be referring to those who were loosed by the death of their mates or by their mates having committed fornication (or those who had never been bound). Certainly this verse does not provide another occasion for loosing than Christ allows elsewhere in Scripture.

Brother Lovelady assumes the thing he has to prove; that release from the constraint of law is granted to one because it is granted to the other. Paul said that “if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress” (Rom. 7:3). I can read that the Lord relieves the one who puts away a mate for fornication of the vile and disgraceful identification as an “adulteress.” Now, let us see the passage where the Lord relieves the other, who incidentally has already proven herself to be an adulteress.

The Lord’s role in restraining persons by law is further confirmed by the powerful statement of Malachi when he said, “. . . because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously,- yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant” (Mal. 2:14). They had profaned “God’s holy institution which he loves” (Mal. 2:11). They had put away their lawful companions, the “wives of their youth,” to marry others and God “hates divorce” (Mal. 2:16). Notice carefully the point in this passage: God was “witness” to a sacred “covenant” to which he bound them (see also Prov. 2:17). When they violated the covenant with their wives, they offended God because God was party to the covenant. The passage ends with a call for justice with regard to the consequences of such evil (Mal. 2:17). Perhaps here were some of those “real innocent mates.” Let’s not confuse this discussion by failing to recognize that some men and women just simply surrender to their lusts and dishonor themselves (cf. Rom. 1:18-32) without their mates being party to it or responsible for it.

The right to marry is not a “human right” in the sense that persons are free to marry whomever they will. Certainly, brother Lovelady will agree that persons divorced for some cause other than fornication do not have the “human right” to marry others. That is because God has not freed them from the force of his law. They are not under civil law and they are not performing the duties of marriage. They are “married” only in the sense that God has them under the constraint of law. In addition, one who has never been married does not have the “human right” to marry one divorced for some cause other than fornication.

Neither is marrying a “human right” in the same sense that it is necessary to eat so that we may live or to work so that we may eat. The reasons are found in God’s original mandates concerning the permanence of marriage vows and his continuing governance of marriage by his laws. The Lord’s pronouncement that “if anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thess. 2:10) has nothing to do with and is not restricted by the marital status of the individual. On the other hand, the privilege of marriage is very much restricted.

I must say, before concluding, that when one refuses to give authority for his position ii, honorable discussion, he is not acting in the same spirit Christ did in Matthew 21. Jesus knew the hearts of the chief priests and elders. I trust that my brother has not concluded that all of us (including you readers who disagree with him) are to the point where he should say to us: “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things?” If so this debate is over. I trust that it not the case. It is interesting, however, that he “understands that the New Testament does not deal with the put-away fornicator.”

I expect that if brother Lovelady could establish his proposition with Scriptures, all of us would be glad to accept and preach it. None of us enjoys telling a person that he/she is committing sin. Let us remember, however, that brother Lovelady will have to show from the Scriptures that God gives the put-away fornicator the right to marry another without sinning.

(Note: I have no disposition to debate what brethren have said on this subject. In fairness to brother McGarvey, however, I must ask brother Lovelady to read page 242 of Fourfold Gospel where McGarvey, in collaboration with W.K. Pendleton, said,

It is implied that divorce for unchastity breaks the marriage bond, and it is therefore held almost universally, both by commentators and moralists, that the innocent party to such a divorce can marry again. Of course the guilty party could not, for no one is allowed by law to reap the benefits of his own wrong. For further light on the subject see Rom. vii. 1-3; 1 Cor. vii. 10- 16, 39. It is much to be regretted that in many Protestant countries the civil authorities have practically set aside this law of Christ by allowing divorce and remarriage for a variety of causes. No man who respects the authority of Christ can take advantage of such legislation.

This was published in 1905 and obviously reflects McGarvey’s conclusion after much more study. I hope that brother Lovelady will respond likewise.)

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, pp. 46-47
January 17, 1991

By Glen W. Lovelady

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

Let’s begin at the end of brother Caldwell’s article. He didn’t want to talk about what others had to say, but he did make a note about brother McGarvey and I am convinced that he would have brought up the others if he thought that they had changed their opinion. I heard a professor say the other day, “When someone uses the word, ,obviously,’ it probably isn’t.” I believe we will find this to be true again as we investigate this reference made in the book, The Four-Fold Gospel, by McGarvey and Pendleton in 1905. I understand that McGarvey and Pendleton did not agree on this point, and that it was Pendleton who made this comment not McGarvey. In the preface of McGarvey’s 1892 New Commentary on the Book of Acts he states quite clearly,

My advanced age, and the many calls of duty which seem to claim the remnant of my active life, remind me that this is most probably the last effort that I shall make to improve a work. . .

Does that sound like he was intending to change his work in 1905? 1 think not. Your comment, “This . . . obviously reflects McGarvey’s conclusion after much more study,” would more likely cause him to turn over in his grave. Either way, I want you to know that I stand with McGarvey of 1875 and Whiteside of 1939 for their statements were based upon:

(I) What Jesus said in Matthew 19:9, that a putting-away for fornication breaks the bond between the two of them; and

(II) What Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, that one who is “loose from a wife” can marry without sin.

These two principles are all that we have to go by, and I shall fight for them until you brethren come up with “a direct confirmation from God, ” that states that the put-away fornicator is an exception to these principles and that he must live a life of celibacy. The statement of 1905 was based upon the opinion of Pendleton and it doesn’t hold water. You can start with the story of David and Bathsheba. According to the movie he got to keep her and later they had a son who became a great king of Israel. Maybe it’s only in the movies that people get away with murder or reap the benefits of their own wrong, but I think not.

Did any of you ever steal a piece of candy, a cookie, or even a watermelon? Did you reap the benefits of your wrong? What about the one who lied about his age so he could get married, or who got pregnant only to have a baby to love and care for? Did he reap the benefits of his wrong-doings?

We could ask about the rich people who get their wealth by “hook or by crook.” Answering these questions with a honest heart will allow you to see through this “law” of Pendleton, or whoever came up with it. I can still hear the people crying out, “Men and Brethren, what shall we do?” Pendleton cries out, “No one is allowed by law to reap the benefits of his own wrong” but Peter stood up and said, “Repent and be baptized every one of you (guilty ones) for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:23,36,38).

Now nobody will got away with any wrong doing in this life for we must all stand before God at the judgment day and give an account (Rom. 14:10) and receive his just recompense of reward (Heb. 2:2). Let God deal with the put-away fornicator as he wishes, but let’s not jeopardize our relationship, fellowship and salvation over him. I pray to God that we will stop making laws for others (Rom. 14:4), that we will speak as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11), and that we will be satisfied with these two principles found in Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:27-28.

Based upon these two principles he has the right to remarry, so the responsibility of authority is up to you to come up with a passage that demands that some who are “loose from a wife” can’t marry. Trying to offset these two principles, you brethren have come up with many man-made laws and rules that are not found in the New Testament, such as:

(1) Only the innocent can marry, I mean “really innocent.”

(2) The guilty can’t remarry, for he has forfeited his right of marriage and thus must live a life of celibacy.

(3) “No one is allowed by law to reap the benefits of his own wrong.”

(4) The guilty must be punished in this life.

I affirm that the innocent one can marry, but not because she is innocent, but rather because she is “loose” from a husband (Matt. 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:27-28). These principles apply to all, guilty or innocent.

I am doing all that I can to warn you brethren about this matter in the kindest way I know how. I love you and I want your fellowship, but I will not violate these two principles, because I don’t want to jeopardize my fellowship with God. You all have gone beyond a “thus saith the Lord,” to inflict this punishment upon him and in the light of 1 Timothy 4:3, 1 will have no part in it.

Brother Caldwell has charged me with presuming that the put-away fornicator is not found in Romans 7:14, and that he is found in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28. Let’s just see who is doing the presuming. In Romans 7:14 we have a woman who marries another man while still bound to her husband. Does that sound like she is a put-away fornicator? No!

Now to 1 Corinthians 7:27-28. Paul says that if you are “loose from a wife,” you can marry without committing sin. Is the put-away fornicator “loose from a wife”? Yes! So you can see that I am not presuming anything. There is no put-away fornicator in Romans 7:14, and there can be a put-away fornicator in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, because he is “loose from a wife.”

In response to the reference in Malachi 2:11-17 and Proverbs 2:17, I find nothing there about a put-away fornicator and especially that he is bound to celibacy. If God wanted this as a call to justice, that would be fine with me, but we have no such passage to suggest it. And by the way brother Caldwell, I looked up in my dictionary the word “justice.” It defines it as “deserved punishment” (p. 435), so brother Caldwell is back trying to punish the put-away fornicator, even though he specifically stated that this was not the issue.

Brother Caldwell wants me to come up with a specific passage that gives the “right” for the put-away fornicator to marry another. I told him in the first article that the New Testament does not deal with him. It doesn’t say he can and it likewise doesn’t say he can’t. All that brother Caldwell had to say about that was, “it is interesting.” It is more than “interesting,” it is the truth!

The New Testament does speak about “the right” of one who is “loose from a wife” (1 Cor. 7:27-28); he can marry until you come up with “a direct confirmation from God” saying that he can’t. Would the death of his former wife allow him to remarry? If not, when could the put-away fornicator marry without sin? If yes, would her death release two men (her former husband and her new husband)? These are questions that you brethren must deal with when you tamper with God’s word.

The New Testament does speak of an unlawful puttingaway that does not break the marriage bond. And it also speaks of a lawful putting-away that does break the marriage bond between the two of them.

The put-away fornicator must fall under one of these choices. Since he was put-away for fornication, he comes under Roman numeral two above, whether you know it or not, or whether you like it or not. His marriage bond (glue) is broken, destroyed, and obliterated; thus he is “loose from a wife.” He and anyone else who is “loose” from a mate can marry without committing adultery, and it is not left up to you brethren to decide differently or to prescribe his punishment.

Since God had joined them together (Rom. 7:2) and since God has released (unglued) the “innocent” from the “guilty, ” then that must mean that the “guilty party” is no longer bound (glued) to the “innocent party.” This comes under the heading of common horse-sense, implication, and necessary inference. Join your left hand to your right hand and then release the left hand from the right. Both are free from one another. See how easy that was and how uncomplicated it is? God joined the husband to the wife and they are joined together until God releases them from each other. Why must you brethren complicate this matter with your mental gymnastics and opinions? You agree that his bond is broken and that he is “loose from a wife,” but he can’t marry. Why not? Please explain your reasoning! We reason that he can marry only because he is “loose from a wife” (1 Cor. 7:27-28).

The same goes for the man that killed his wife. I know that we are not debating his case, but they are the same and, if you can see the principles in this case, then you ought to be able to comprehend both.

The Put-Away Fornicator

The Man Who Killed His Wife

Both men have put asunder their marriage. Both deserve to be put to death. Both have lost their marriage, wife, family, friends, job, health.

– and “their sin will ever be before them” (Psa. 32:5; 38:1-12; 51:1-3). Both men will spend eternity in Hell unless they get right with God. Both men are “loose from a wife.”

Who are we to say they can’t marry if someone would have them? I can handle the consequences and penalties that result from sin. I just have trouble handling your man-made laws that force celibacy upon anyone who is “loose” from a mate. Where is your authority to force celibacy upon anyone who is “loose” from a mate in the light of 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, and in the light of 1 Timothy 4:3? You brethren better back off from the put-away fornicator and let him marry if someone would have him. You have set yourselves up as judge, jury, and executioners over these sinners and you have condemned them to celibacy, without a passage. God has left the door open for them to turn their lives around, have a marriage, and even to go to heaven. If he is fit for heaven he would be fit for marriage, if he is “Loose from a wife.”

You brethren need to consider the man who was taken back by his wife after an affair. What are the penalties and consequences for his affair? When you come up with the penalties and consequences for him, you will have the proper penalties and consequences for the put-away fornicator. I see no difference between the two of them, but there is a difference in the disposition of their wives. One wife forgave and took back her husband, while the other put him away for fornication and both had authority to do so.

If you have “a direct confirmation from God,” that forces celibacy upon the put-away fornicator, then this debate is over, for I shall not argue with God. Produce the passage and I will stop arguing this point. Thank you for hearing me out and I pray to God that you will consider these principles and make the proper application before it is too late!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 2, pp. 48-49
January 17, 1991