|
Brother Watts’
original article:
Doctrines and Principles Regarding MDR
Brother Cavender’s
response to David’s original article follows below. - Jeff
October 12, 2004
A
Response To Brother Bill Cavender
By David Watts Jr.
The September 2004 issue of Gospel
Truths contained an article I wrote rejecting the false teaching of brother
Bill Cavender.
Brother Cavender believes and teaches that a woman who was put away by her
husband (not for fornication) can lawfully remarry after her ex-husband
remarries or commits adultery.
As I stated in my original article, I
find brother Cavender’s teaching to be false and utterly devoid of Scriptural
basis. The Scriptures teach that a put away spouse cannot remarry until such
time that their original spouse may die.
Brother Cavender has replied to my
article. The first half of his reply is scheduled to be published in the
November 2004 issue of Gospel Truths. The second part is scheduled to be
published in the December 2004 issue of Gospel Truths. I will have a
brief response to each of these parts in the same issues.
In the interim, brother Cavender has
been emailing his rather lengthy response to brethren across the country. Rather
than wait until the November publication to respond to brother Cavender’s
article, I have prepared this response and will make it available to interested
brethren.
Because of the length of this
response, I organized it in a manner that I hope is easy to read. The following
13 topics are addressed in this reply:
Ø
The Issue Is Not
Ø
The Issue Is
Ø
The Original Four
Articles: An Attempt to Help?
Ø
Jesus Forbids But
Brother Cavender Permits
Ø
“Whosoever” Means
Whosoever
Ø
It’s Either Right or
Its Wrong
Ø
A Divorce is Still a
Real Divorce
Ø
Woods/Cavender on Civil
Action
Ø
An Unnecessary
Conclusion
Ø
One of Us is A False
Teacher
Ø
The Identity of the
Woman
Ø
Is Jesus’ Teaching
Really a Theory?
Ø
Some Wise Words From
Young Brother Cavender
The Issue Is Not:
In his reply brother Cavender wants
to make sure everyone understands that I am a young preacher. If 37 years old
makes a man young, then I’m guilty as charged. But brother Cavender knows that
my age is not the issue before us.
I trust all thoughtful brethren
understand that young Gospel preachers are still Gospel preachers
and must reject false teaching even if it comes from older men. A certain
33-year-old preacher wrote a good article in The Gospel Guardian, June
23, 1960 (Vol. 12, No. 9, page 129) titled “Trends Toward Apostasy - (No. II).”
This young Gospel preacher identified false teachers by name and publicly
rebuked them for teaching false doctrine:
“our eructative brother Gayle Oler…
he helped a denominational church in its work of teaching and rearing children
in error which will damn their souls… our erstwhile brother Pat Hardeman has
openly made a break with the Lord’s church, has announced his apostasy and
shipwreck of faith… brother Thomas Cook used to believe the truth but found it
highly convenient and profitable to change his convictions after he began
full-time preaching.”
In the midst of the great apostasy of
institutionalism and liberalism, these men needed to listen to the warning call
of the young Gospel preacher Bill Cavender. As a young man,
Brother Cavender rejected false teaching because God’s word required it of him.
I’ve rejected the false teaching of brother Cavender because God’s word requires
it of me (Titus 1:10-13, Acts 4:20).
My age or Bill Cavender’s age is not
the issue before us.
Brother Cavender also quoted at great
length Guy Woods’ arguments in favor of the mental divorce position
(interestingly enough, Guy Woods was a key part of that great apostasy young
brother Cavender so eloquently condemned in 1960). Brother Cavender says, “The
above by Guy N. Woods well states what I have believed and taught for
fifty-eight years.” It is troubling to see a Gospel Preacher who worked hard to
reject the false teaching of men like Guy Woods, now relying so heavily upon Guy
Woods for their defense of this false teaching on marriage, divorce and
remarriage.
Nevertheless, what Guy Woods had to
say about Marriage, Divorce and Remarriages is not the issue before us.
Brother Cavender also provided a
lengthy summary of Old Testament teaching on divorce and remarriage. But that’s
not the issue either. We know that the Old Testament has great value for us
today (Rom. 15:14, 1 Cor. 10:11, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, etc.). But when Jesus spoke on
the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage He did not go back
to Moses’ law. Jesus went back to the “beginning” (Matt. 19:4) - all the way
back to the first union of a man and a woman.
Thus, whatever Moses taught or did
not teach, or what God permitted or did not permit under the Law of Moses is not
the issue in this discussion.
The issue is also not who gets to the
courthouse first. If a wife learns that her husband is guilty of marital
fornication and yet he is attempting to divorce her, she can easily participate
in the court process and put him away for the reason of fornication. It matters
not who arrives at the courthouse first or who hires an attorney first.
If a husband decides to divorce his
wife for reasons other than fornication, and he himself has never committed
fornication, there can be no race to the courthouse. A race requires two or more
parties. If this ungodly husband wants to divorce his wife and yet he has not
committed fornication, the godly wife has no reason and no grounds for divorce.
Thus there is no race in this circumstance either.
The Issue Is:
The issue before us is simple. Do the
Scriptures authorize a woman whose husband unlawfully divorced her (a divorce
not for fornication) to marry another while he still lives, or did Jesus
prohibit the divorced woman from remarrying while her original spouse still
lives?
The Original Four Articles: An
Attempt to Help?
The original four articles published
in Truth Magazine under the title of “Observations and Experiences
Regarding Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage” - were they intended to help
Christians deal with the difficulties of this subject? Of course they were. They
consumed valuable print real estate in Truth Magazine. They were
obviously the result of much work and thought on the part of brother Cavender.
They were clearly designed to help Christians.
Unfortunately, they presented a loose
view of God’s laws on marriage, divorce and remarriage. Thus, although they may
be labeled as “Reminiscences” we have every right (and in fact a duty – Acts
17:11) to evaluate the message and respond with a Biblical perspective. The
original four articles, what they taught, the message they contained and the
author’s beliefs and teaching are all open for Biblical scrutiny.
Jesus Forbids But Brother Cavender
Permits
In Mt. 5:32, 19:9 and Luke 16:18
Jesus forbids the put away wife from remarrying. In these texts we have (1) a
lawful marriage, (2) an unlawful putting away, (3) an unlawful and adulterous
remarriage on the part of the man and (4) a prohibition on remarriage for the
put away wife.
Paul’s teaching is consistent with
Jesus’ teaching and nowhere does Paul authorize a put away wife to remarry
another man save on the death of her ex-husband (Rom. 7:1-3). Nor does Peter
grant an exception for Jesus’ prohibition on a put away spouse remarrying. Luke
does not. John does not. Jude does not. James does not. No New Testament writer
overturns the teaching of Jesus.
Yet, brother Cavender has been
permitting for “fifty-eight years” what Jesus prohibited. He follows Jesus’
teaching for a little while. He sees a (1) lawful marriage, (2) an unlawful
putting away, and (3) an unlawful and adulterous remarriage on the part of the
man. But then brother Cavender says “she can remarry” while Jesus says “whoever
marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery” (Luke 16:18).
None of the inspired writers wrote
anything that could even be misconstrued as permission for the put away wife to
remarry. On what authority does brother Cavender permit what Scripture forbids?
Is the Scriptural prohibition on a
divorced wife remarrying prior to the death of her lawful husband a “theory” or
Bible truth? We know where brother Cavender stands. Let the reader stand fast on
the Scriptures and reject all contrary teaching.
“Whosoever” Means Whosoever
Brother Cavender makes the following
astonishing claim about my position:
“…he turns Matthew 19:9 ‘topsy-turvy’
by making the ‘whosoever’ mean a fornicating, immoral husband who repudiates his
innocent, godly wife, instead of the ‘whosoever’ being an innocent, true,
moral husband who repudiates his immoral, fornicating wife, as taught and
contemplated by Jesus {emphasis mine – dwjr}.”
Read Matthew 19:9 again. In fact,
let’s read it together from the NKJV:
“And I say to you, whoever divorces
his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery;
and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
Let’s check it from a few other
versions. The KJV says “whosoever.” The ASV says “whosoever.” The NASB says
“whoever.” Young’s Literal Translation says “whoever.”
Clearly, the “whosoever” means
anybody, anyone, whoever, or whosoever that puts away their wife not for the
cause of fornication. Clearly, if a person puts away his spouse not for
fornication, he is violating God’s commands. Such a person is sinning. Clearly,
such a person has turned his back on God’s law.
Yet brother Cavender somehow claims
the “whosoever” is an “innocent, true, moral husband.” Do “innocent, true, moral
husbands” put away their wives for unlawful reasons as Jesus was describing?
Clearly they do not.
The true definition of “topsy-turvy”
is any teaching from anybody that rejects such plain
text meaning of the words of the Creator.
It’s Either Right or Its Wrong
Brother Cavender says:
“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.”
If Jesus truly does give a person who
was unlawfully divorced against his will a right of remarriage, as brother
Cavender believes and teaches, why does he urge people NOT to do
what he believes Jesus permits?
Brother Cavender and I both agree
that if a man puts away his spouse because during the marriage she committed
fornication, the man can remarry. Does brother Cavender also always urge those
who divorced a guilty mate for fornication not to remarry? If not,
why not? What is the difference?
Brother Cavender and I both agree
that if a man’s wife dies, the man can remarry. Does brother Cavender also
always urge those whose mate has died not to remarry? If not, why not? What is
the difference?
If Jesus truly permits the put away
innocent mate to remarry, then that put away innocent mate has every bit as much
right to remarry as the one who puts away his guilty mate for fornication, or
the one who has lost his mate to death.
In his response, brother Cavender
claims that I doom the divorced wife to “a life of loneliness, celibacy, and
rejection.” Now we learn that brother Cavender urges such an innocent put away
wife to maintain a life of “loneliness, celibacy, and rejection” even though he
thinks Jesus permits her to remarry.
I teach that Scripture prohibits
remarriage for such a woman. I teach this because the Scriptures clearly state
this in Mt. 5:32, Mt. 19:9 and Luke 16:18. Brother Cavender discourages such a
woman to remarry even though he believes God gave her the right to remarry. So
according to brother Cavender, God gives this innocent woman who was put away by
an ungodly husband a right to remarry and to again enjoy the companionship,
intimacy and joy of marriage. But brother Cavender tells her not to use the
right that he thinks (incorrectly so) God gave her. Brother Cavender teaches
that Jesus permits such a wife to remarry, but he encourages her not to remarry
and to rather submit to a life of “loneliness, celibacy, and rejection.”
And, he does not discourage such
women to remarry in just a few isolated cases. According to his above statement,
this is something he always discourages: “All my life I have urged and cautioned
divorced, put away, people NOT to remarry....” But, he thinks Jesus permits it.
Paul in 1 Cor. 7:26 advised people to
forgo their normal God-given rights to marriage, but that was due to a unique
temporary circumstance that Paul refers to as this “present distress.” Brother
Cavender for 58 years has been teaching that Jesus gives a put away wife the
right to remarry, but that she should not use such a right.
What brother Cavender ought to do is
teach women that Jesus does not permit such remarriage and then his
discouragement of such remarriages would have a Biblical basis.
A Divorce is Still a Real Divorce
Again, brother Cavender says of that
long quotation of Guy Woods:
“The above by Guy N. Woods well
states what I have believed and taught for fifty-eight years.”
Brother Cavender apparently agrees
with Guy 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.”
Since brother Cavender agrees with
this, we need to examine it in light of the Scriptures.
Woods/Cavender believe that this
woman has the right to not recognize the unlawful divorce that is not for
fornication. Is this a Biblical view or is this a view that has originated in
the heart of men?
The problem that exists for
Woods/Cavender is that Jesus recognized the unlawful divorce. Jesus said in Mt.
5:32, Mt. 19:9, Luke 16:18, etc. “...whoever divorces his wife except for sexual
immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” Jesus sees the unlawful
divorce as a real divorce. It has real consequences. If an innocent wife should
marry this husband who unlawfully divorced his wife, this new woman commits
adultery. This divorce is a real event with real consequences.
The Woods/Cavender theory is that
since the divorce not for fornication is unlawful, the woman has the right to
ignore it and disregard it. But did Jesus say this? Surely if it is true, Jesus
would have indicated that the woman has this right to ignore or refuse to
acknowledge this unlawful divorce. But, Jesus says nothing of the sort. In fact,
what Jesus does say to the innocent divorced wife is that she cannot remarry.
Consider the Woods/Cavender theory
that a put away woman can ignore the unlawful divorce, disregard it, and
consider it of no consequence to her. Examine the Scriptures. Is this a Biblical
concept or a creation of man’s heart?
Woods/Cavender on Civil Action
Brother Cavender also agrees with his
quoted statement from Guy Woods:
“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.”
Let’s examine this particular aspect
of the Woods/Cavender theory.
Woods/Cavender believe that since
civil law permits what is unlawful, the event is not real and of no consequence.
But what was Jesus dealing with in His teaching in Mt. 5:32, Mt. 19:9, Luke
16:18? He describes an unlawful divorce. It is a divorce where a man puts away
his wife for some reason other than fornication. Was this a divorce according to
God’s law? Absolutely not. It was in violation of God’s law.
Therefore, it must have been a
divorce granted according to some civil or social standards of law. Yet, we know
it is unlawful to God. Nevertheless, Jesus proclaims that the put away woman (in
this context it is clearly a woman that has been put away by an unlawful civil
process) must not remarry.
Therefore, in 33 A.D. Jesus was
prohibiting a woman from remarrying who has been put away by her husband in an
unlawful process.
Therefore, in 2004 A.D. Jesus
prohibits a woman from remarrying who has been put away by her husband in an
unlawful process.
And, in 2004 A.D. brother Cavender
must align his teaching with Jesus’ teaching.
It is always interesting to see men
write at great length about how civil law is subservient to God’s Divine law.
But at the end of their arguments they themselves end up overthrowing Divine law
by changing what Jesus said (“…whoever marries a divorced woman commits
adultery.”)
An Unnecessary Conclusion
For many years men like brother
Cavender have taught us that we establish Biblical authority by using direct
commands, approved examples and necessary conclusions. In fact, the Scriptures
themselves show that this is how the early Christians established Bible
authority. Acts 15 is an excellent example of all three of these methods being
used to establish Biblical authority and reject false teaching.
But Woods/Cavender use unnecessary
conclusions in defense of their false doctrine. The unnecessary conclusion is
well stated by Woods/Cavender as follows:
“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.”
Note that this statement by
Woods/Cavender is describing something that takes place after a divorce
proceeding. The unnecessary conclusion is that this putting away of one who is
guilty of adultery can be done even when there is ONLY a bond in place and well
after the marriage has been ended and terminated by divorce.
The Scriptures show that divorce ends
the marriage. It is the very nature of the word that we have translated as “put
away” or “divorce.” It is a sending out, a repudiation of one’s spouse. It is a
termination of the marriage relationship. It is contemplated as a real
possibility by Jesus and Jesus is clear about the implications if it should
occur. Read again what Paul said in 1 Cor. 7:11:
“But even if she does depart, let her
remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to
divorce his wife.”
It is clear that Paul is
contemplating divorce by either a wife or a husband and that if they do proceed
with such an unlawful divorce they must remain “unmarried” or be “reconciled.”
Paul’s injunction to remain unmarried
shows that divorce leaves the marriage broken and terminated.
Yet we know from Romans 7:1-3 that
the bond remains after the unlawful divorce breaks the marriage. That is why
subsequent remarriage on the part of either party is adultery.
It is Jesus’ teaching that shows the
possibility of divorcing one’s spouse for fornication. In what context may this
be done? Can it be done even if the marriage has been terminated and ended by
divorce? Can it be done even when there is ONLY a marriage bond that remains?
What does Jesus describe in Mt. 19:9,
Mt. 5:32 and Luke 16:18? At the beginning of the verses, are the husband and
wife in or out of a marriage? Has the divorce occurred yet? The simple answer is
that the man and woman are in a marriage and no divorce has occurred.
Then, the verses show an unlawful
divorce. Next, the verses teach the consequences for both the man and woman.
Mt. 19:9 and Mt. 5:32 include the
exception clause “except for fornication.” This clause is still subject to the
context. What is the context? The context is: A lawful marriage, not 5 days, 5
years or 30 years after the marriage has been broken by divorce.
Thus Jesus’ granting of the ability
to divorce a mate guilty of fornication is found in the context of an intact
marriage AND a marriage bond.
Yet the Woods/Cavender position
assumes and makes unnecessary conclusions that this ability to put away a
fornicating mate extends to a different context. They assume it extends to cases
of adultery that occur post-divorce, where ONLY the marriage bond remains.
According to the Woods/Cavender theory, this post-divorce adultery that frees
the innocent party could occur 5 days later, 5 years later or 30 years later.
But let brother Cavender show just
one passage that clearly teaches that post-divorce adultery (5 days, 5 years or
30 years later) on the part of one’s ex-spouse qualifies that person to somehow
put away their mate, who was already put away.
Jesus’ teaching is very clear. If
during an intact marriage, one partner commits fornication, the other may
divorce them lawfully. It is simply fanciful thinking to extend such privilege
to post-divorce adultery.
One of Us is a False Teacher
Brother Cavender is convinced that I
am teaching error:
“…he is misusing Scriptures and
teaching error… DW quotes and misapplies part of Matt. 5:32, 19:9, and Luke
16:18… DW calls Jesus to witness of his contorted theory by misapplying the
three verses he quoted… DW has misused and misapplied all of these Scriptures
and has tried to make them say and teach something Jesus did not say and teach,
all a vain attempt to uphold his theory and opinion… He should consider what 2
Timothy 2:15 says, and heed the warning in Galatians 1:6-9.”
Yet Jesus said, “…whoever marries her
who is divorced commits adultery” and brother Cavender says, “…whoever marries
her who is divorced does not commit adultery.”
The warning of Gal. 1:6-9 is indeed a
very important warning we must all heed. When I teach the exact words of Jesus
in perfect harmony with the rest of the New Testament Scriptures – am I teaching
another Gospel?
On the other hand, when a man twists
and distorts the plain text meaning of the words of God – isn’t he the one
guilty of teaching a new Gospel?
Who teaches error? Let the reader
decide.
The Identify of The Woman
Brother Cavender says of the latter
part of Matthew 19:9:
“…The context shows Jesus is talking
about the woman who was divorced for fornication.”
On the contrary, in Mt. 5:32, Mt.
19:9, and Luke 16:18 Jesus also describes a man that divorces his wife for
unlawful reasons. Divorce means exactly the same thing in either instance. Then
Jesus says, “whoever marries her who is put away commits adultery.” Who is the
“her”? The “her” is “her that is put away.” The context demands that the “her”
is any woman that is divorced by her husband. It certainly
includes a woman put away for unlawful reasons, as well as the woman put away
for fornication. The truth is that brother Cavender has imagined that the “her”
is ONLY a woman put way for fornication. In truth, it is any put
away woman or man.
Is this a Bible truth or a theory? We
know where brother Cavender stands. Let the reader stand with the Scriptures.
Is Jesus’ Teaching Really a Theory?
Is Jesus’ teaching that the put away
person cannot remarry really a theory? Brother Cavender described Jesus’
teaching at least 13 times as a “theory.” Once, brother Cavender even referred
to it as a “contorted theory.”
Brother Cavender serves as a Staff
Writer for Truth Magazine. At least two of the men on Truth Magazine’s
Board of Directors also teach what Jesus taught – that a put away woman may not
remarry – the very teaching that brother Cavender calls a “contorted theory.”
Notice what brother Connie Adams said
in the August 19, 2004 issue of Truth Magazine:
“When it comes to the issue of
divorce and remarriage, we must be careful to respect what the Lord has said.
There is a good deal of tension now over what is being called ‘mental divorce’
in which a party who was put away for some other cause than fornication may
later put away a mate who either marries again or else commits adultery after
the fact of the divorce. Jesus said, ‘And whosoever shall marry her that is
divorced committeth adultery’ (Matt. 5:32). The same thing is stated in Matthew
19:9. When we have exhausted all the emotional arguments about fairness, and the
intricacies of what constitutes ‘puttting away,’ these passages will still say
what they have always said… It is not binding where Jesus did not bind to
say that one who has been divorced is not free to marry for that is precisely
what Jesus said. {emphasis mine – dwjr} If what is described here does
not constitute a mental dismissal, or a second putting away, after the marriage
has ended legally and in fact, then I am at a loss as to what to call it.”
Notice what brother Donnie Rader said
in his lecture at Florida College on February 8, 2001 (http://www.truthmagazine.com/fclecture2001.html):
“The more I study divorce and
remarriage the more I am convinced that Matthew 19:9 is just as simple as Acts
2:38. Neither text is hard - only what people say about them. With both,
quibbles are made that make the issues that surround them seem difficult. But,
when we go back to what the text says, it is simple and understandable.”
And later:
“Determining who has a right to
remarry is not as difficult as some may think. A couple of simple questions give
us the needed information. "Who put who away?" And, "What was the cause of the
divorce?" If the person in question is the one who put away his mate, he
fits into the first clause of Matthew 19:9. If it was for fornication, he can
remarry. If it was not for fornication, he cannot remarry. If the person
in question is the one who was put away, he fits into the second clause of
Matthew 19:9. He cannot remarry. Now, that's simple!” {emphasis mine –
dwjr}
And later:
“In fact, there has been a shift in
attitude toward those who defend the truth and those who teach error on divorce
and remarriage. The men who call us back to the pattern of Matthew 5 and 19 are
the "bad guys" who trouble Israel while those whose teaching we agree does not
fit the Lord's instructions are the "good guys" who are to be used and honored!”
I do not quote these men as
authorities. Only God’s word is our authority. My purpose in quoting brother
Adams and brother Rader is simply to inquire as to whether brother Cavender
considers them also to be teachers of error and a “contorted theory.”
I know of other men who presently
serve as Staff Writers for Truth Magazine who teach just exactly what
Jesus teaches on this subject – that a put away wife cannot remarry. Will
brother Cavender also describe these fellow Staff Writers as teachers of a
“contorted theory”?
But on the other hand, are there
other Truth Magazine Staff Writers or Board Members who agree with
brother Cavender – that when one teaches that a put away wife cannot remarry –
he is teaching a “contorted theory”? I’ve heard Brother Weldon Warnock on his
radio program, as he rejects the idea that Jesus forbids remarriage for a put
away spouse. Are there others who agree with Woods/Cavender/Warnock?
Some Wise Words From Young Brother
Cavender
In the same 1960 Gospel Guardian
article we started with, listen to young brother Cavender describe the course of
apostasy:
“The course of apostasy has three
ingredients: (1) Lack of knowledge of and a disrespect for the will of God; (2)
Exaltation of human leaders and human wisdom; (3) time.”
Amen young brother Cavender. Amen.
The present apostasy concerning MDR
is upon us because men lack proper knowledge, and they disrespect God’s word.
Sadly, brother Cavender apparently lacks a sufficient knowledge of what Jesus
taught on this vital subject and he disrespects God’s word by blatantly teaching
something that is so clearly contradictory to all that the Scriptures say on
this subject.
This present apostasy is upon us
because men exalt human leaders and human wisdom. Brother Cavender does not get
support for his position from plain simple Bible teaching. Brother Cavender uses
twisted human logic and emotional stories to garner support for his teaching. He
cites a preacher that was caught up in the apostasy of institutionalism in order
to define his own views. In the end, brother Cavender has exalted human wisdom
over the plain simple wisdom that is from above.
And we have the final ingredient:
time. Brother Cavender has been teaching this doctrine for 58 years. That means
that for 58 years he has been teaching this damnable heresy (2 Peter 2:1) which
results in adulterous marriages and false hope.
Brother Cavender, please listen to
young brother Cavender. Recognize that this false teaching of yours leads
brethren into error and apostasy. Please repent from this false teaching.
Brethren need your preaching, teaching, and historical perspectives - but only
to the extent they fully and completely harmonize with the Word of God.
David Watts Jr.
2090 Fort Drive
Longview,
TX 75064
(903) 295-9757
davidwattsjr@sbcglobal.net
A RESPONSE TO BROTHER DAVID WATTS, JR.
By Bill Cavender
Gospel Truths, September 2004, contained a lengthy article by
brother David Watts, Jr., preacher of the Reel Road church in Longview, Texas.
His article was supposedly precipitated by four articles from me, printed in
Truth Magazine, March 10, April 1, May 6 and 20, 2004, entitled "Observations
And Experiences Regarding Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage." (It would be of
much help if editor Smith would print these articles in Gospel Truths. Then his
readers could read and understand what I really did say, not what brother Watts
says that I said. I doubt brother Smith will do this. If any readers of Gospel
Truths would like a copy of these articles, please go to the Truth Magazine
website, www.truthmagazine.com, where they are posted, or e-mail me at cavenderb@aol.com,
or phone me at 615-890-7198. I will see that you receive a copy.)
DW (I will use initials for brevity and space, not intending any
offense), writes: "After reading and considering four such articles in this
series, I am now convinced that these kinds of articles are not the answer to
the problems many brethren and churches face regarding marriage, divorce and
remarriage. There is something more needed by brethren than the 'observations
and experiences' of a man. The solution to the marriage and divorce problems
that brethren and churches are experiencing will not and cannot come from human
observations and experiences; the solution can only come from Bible doctrine and
Bible principles." I could not agree more!
Yet, from what is said in that paragraph, DW misconstrues, misjudges
and misunderstands my motives, reasons and purposes in writing the articles in
Truth Magazine. Beginning in April, 2002, I began a series of articles in that
paper under the preface of "REMINISCENCES" (to date, twenty-seven such articles
have appeared, along with other articles on a variety of topics. I hope to
continue writing "REMINISCENCES" in Truth Magazine, if the Lord lets me live and
the editor will print them). All of these "REMINISCENCES" have been in reference
to me, reflecting my life in the kingdom of God, for fifty-eight years, as a
Christian, a preacher, and as an elder of two congregations where I have
preached. These "historical" articles have been important to me, to my family,
and to many brethren who have been my friends through many years and who "have
fought the good fight of faith" along with me. The articles have enjoyed a warm
and approving reception by a great number of readers. I have received many, many
written and oral words and communications of interest, appreciation,
commendation and encouragement. There are still a few older brethren and
friends, my contemporaries in the church of the Lord, who have known my history
and my work through the years (Lord willing, I will be seventy-eight in
November). Many, many younger brethren have contacted me and commented to me,
appreciating my efforts to preserve a bit of history of the Lord's people over
the past half century, events and history which these younger brethren did not
experience but can only wonder and read about, as they view and live the
aftermath and results of the tragedies and divisions among brethren in this
troubled period. Before my work on earth is done and while I am still able to
think and write, I've wanted to record, from my perspectives, participations and
experiences, a brief history of the days of my life in the church of our Lord.
With some I am evidently succeeding in these objectives; to others I am
miserably failing; with many there is no care nor interest, one way or the
other.
I did not write these articles in Truth Magazine as "the answer to
the problems" among brethren and churches regarding marriage, divorce and
remarriage, or any other problems among brethren, as DW indicates. I DID write
the articles as a review of my history and participation in the problems of
institutionalism, of centralization of the work of local churches, of the
divisions and alienations amongst the brethren, and of some of the marriage,
divorce and remarriage circumstances of people which I have encountered through
the years, from 1946 until the present. I DID express my studied convictions in
all of these problem areas. I DID NOT write with a view to detailed
argumentation and debate in those matters mentioned. My brethren have had so
many problems during the past fifty - sixty years (MDR, with all its various
facets and theories, being just ONE of the many). Had our Heavenly Father not
been merciful and forbearing to His foolish children, we would not today exist
as an identifiable body of people. I, nor any other man, nor all men
collectively, could never "answer" all the problems, even if we attempted to
try, and even if we could understand the problems! By the time one problem would
be settled (I've lived to learn that no problem is ever REALLY settled and put
to rest among my brethren), there would be a dozen more, figuratively speaking.
Churches of the Lord have been a problem-plagued people all my lifetime. A
brother in the Lord, older than I am in the faith and in years, recently
remarked to me that "we are a horrible, haggling house of God's children, never
satisfied unless we are arguing and fussing with each other." But was it not
that way also in the first century? Different problems and "issues" then, but
the same basic attitudes and practices observed then as now. Those churches of
the first century had a rather brief recognizable history. "We" ("conservative,
faithful" churches; "NI churches," as the liberal brethren designate us) are
traveling the same road into oblivion, in my judgment. We are a diminishing body
of people, both in numbers and in influence, as I view our present existence,
being a very small body of religiously divided people in a large sinful world of
over six billions of lost souls. There is little evidence that we, as a people,
believe or even recognize that this is so. Long ago our spiritual gunsights and
hunting scopes turned inwardly upon one another rather than outwardly upon Satan
and his wiles (Eph. 6:10-19).
DW is an aggressive young preacher, in his first "local work" of
some four years. He is not of sufficient age and experience to have had many, if
any, "observations and experiences." If the Lord lets him live, and if he
remains faithful in his personal moral life, in family life, and in working with
people, and especially with his brethren, he will learn much from "observations
and experiences." These are not to be scoffed at and dismissed as of no value.
With God's inspired and holy word, the Scriptures, to teach and guide him and
with "observations and experiences" to mature him, he will be a productive
servant of our Lord. He will find that, next to God Himself as our Teacher (John
6:44-45) through His only-begotten Son (Heb. 1:1-2), "experience IS the best
teacher." We learn to do by doing. What DW sees in others, good or bad, right or
wrong, will benefit him in his decisions, in his work for and in his walk with
the Lord toward eternity. And if he has judgment enough to comprehend, and
humility enough to admit that he doesn't know it all, whatever "all" is, and if
he will avoid theories and opinions, he will be a good, faithful and profitable
servant.
On April 15, during a meeting with the Judson Road church in
Longview, Texas, Marinel and I were invited to a noon meal at a restaurant by
brother Barry Pennington and his wife. He preaches at Judson Road. When we
arrived, also present were brother and sister Watts and brother Dennis
Abernathy, who preaches in White Oak, Texas. It was obvious that these three
brethren had made prior plans to discuss MDR with me. This was fine and as it
should be if they desired to do so. I have never refused to discuss Scripture,
or to set forth what I honestly and sincerely believe to be the truth on any
Bible subject. To obey what Peter said, 3:15 in his first letter, has always
been a matter of principle with me, ever since I learned in 1946 that that
Scripture was in the Bible! Here is how DW, in Gospel Truths, relates that noon
meeting of April 15:
"…And discussed in detail with him what he teaches and what he
believes about Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage. In our presence, brother
Cavender acknowledged that he believes and teaches that a wife, who was put away
by her husband for some cause other than fornication, can remarry with God's
approval when her ex-husband remarries or has sexual relations with another. He
teaches that this woman, who was put away not for fornication, can remarry with
God's blessing and without committing adultery. I find brother Cavender's views
to be without Scriptural basis and to be in contradiction to God's word…"
If our readers will keep the above paragraph in mind (for I will
be referring to it throughout this response), I will now give a brief
dissertation of Bible teaching regarding MDR. As DW correctly wrote, "the
solution can only come from Bible doctrine and Bible principles." I will try
"Bible doctrine and Bible principles" once more with him. I did this on April 15
with those three preachers at lunch. I didn't get through to them. I have done
this in much detail in e-mail correspondence with DW. I didn't get through to
him. Perhaps this third time will be a charm! I wrote some of "Bible doctrine
and Bible principles" in the articles in Truth Magazine. This has been my
understanding of God's will all of my preaching life of over fifty-seven years.
In the beginning, with the first husband and wife, Adam and Eve,
God through Adam stated His perpetual, binding law regarding marriage, the
God-approved relationship between a man and a woman. Adam said, "This is now
bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she
was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:23-24). This
principle and this law have never changed. It applies to all people for all
time, of all cultures and in all countries, regardless of what form of civil
government a country may or may not have, if any at all, and regardless of what
marriage and/or divorce laws the civil or ecclesiastical authorities may or may
not conceive, legislate, enforce and/or change. Jesus our Lord reaffirmed this
original and continuing law of God (Matt. 19:3-9; Mark 10:6-9). Paul, by the
Holy Spirit, reaffirmed this abiding law of God (Eph. 5:31), in illustrating the
abiding relationship between Christ Jesus and His redeemed people, the church.
This law is co-extensive with the human family In its beginning (Gen. 2:23-24),
God's law said nothing and decreed nothing about a man putting away his wife,
divorce and remarrying, nor anything regarding a man or woman remarrying after
the death of a spouse. With the passing of time those matters were regulated by
the Almighty.
This original law of God from the beginning in Eden established a
"one flesh" relationship and communion between a husband and wife, a permanent
life-long union, in which the two people, a male and a female, were "glued,
cemented" together (a man should "cleave" unto his wife). Jesus affirmed this
"one flesh" union, as did also the apostle (Matt. 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-8; Eph.
5:28-32), as still being in force and as being God's purpose and will in
marriage. (I trust the readers to read in their Bible all the referenced
Scriptures. I am not writing them, in order to save space.) This "one flesh"
relationship is superior to the parent-child affinity, even though children are
the products and offspring of this "one flesh" union between their parents. The
"one flesh" union and principle is severed by death, just as is the child-parent
connection. This body of flesh itself, and all earthly ties, are dissolved by
death. The foundations of this "one flesh" union lie, not only in the fact that
Eve's body (her flesh and bones) was literally taken from the body of Adam, but
by mutual love and respect, agreements and vows, commitments, affections,
cohabitation, and bringing children into the union as the embodiments and
results of that heart-felt admiration and life-long affection between the
husband and wife. Truly they are "one flesh." They are "joined together" by the
Creator Himself.
A lawmaker may change, add codicils (addenda), or abrogate a law
that has once been of force and effect. Jehovah God, the Creator of men and
women, and whose offspring we are (Gen. 1:26-27; Acts 17:28-29), the Supreme
Lawgiver, revealed codicils, addenda, to His marriage law in Eden. He did so
through Moses to the Hebrews and through Jesus to all married people. God had
delivered Israel from slavery in Egypt, brought them to Sinai, gave them laws,
forming them into a nation called a "theocracy," with God governing them through
both civil and religious statutes. They were a small nation of people, numbering
possibly two and one-half to three millions of people at the time. His law to
Israel contained a number of provisions regarding sexual relations, chastity,
marriage, and duties of husbands and wives which the original law in Eden did
not mention. Foremost among the marriage laws through Moses at Sinai was a
provision by God to Hebrew husbands, men who had "hardness of heart" toward
their wives, who found fault with them, who found "some uncleanness" in the
wife, allowing such men to divorce, put away ("repudiate, dismiss, reject, send
out of the house," etc.) the wife by giving her "a writing of divorcement" and
sending her out of his house (Deut. 24:1-4). This woman WAS NOT an adulteress,
NOT sexually immoral (another precept of the law dealt with adultery by a
married person, with a death sentence attached, Deut. 22:22). This innocent "put
away," unloved, unwanted wife, for her own protection, safety, and well-being,
could marry another man if she chose to do so and had the opportunity. She was
an innocent, put away, divorced woman She had a God-given right and privilege to
remarry. Who can gainsay it? Deut. 24:1-4 was not a part of God's law in Eden.
Under Deut. 24:1-4, Hebrew men who did not love, cherish, and care for their
wives were restrained; this addendum was for the sake of the women, wives who
were rejected, unwanted and mistreated. This is the first instance in Scripture
whereby God authorized and sanctioned divorce and remarriage, even though His
law pronounced in Eden (Gen. 2:23-24) was still in force and effect over
everyone. The world of sinful people had been violating His law through the
centuries, beginning with Lamech (Gen. 4:19-24). God put restraints upon the
Hebrews. This addendum (Deut. 24:1-4) to God's original law in Eden was in
effect for about 1,500 years, ending when the entire law of Moses was abrogated
and "nailed to the cross" (Col. 2:13-17; Matt. 5:17-20).
Over a thousand years after Moses lived, the last prophet of the
Old Testament period, Malachi, said that God hates "putting away" (divorcing)
(2:14-16). God always has, even though He had been permitting it to Hebrew men,
in certain cases and circumstances, for a millennium. He still does, even though
in the New Testament, in certain cases and circumstances, He permits it.
"Putting away" always involves sin, conflicts, mistreatment of husbands and
wives, and violations of the marriage "one flesh" covenant. "Putting away" was
not a part of God's original plan and law in Eden. Sin had not entered into the
world when the law of marriage in the beginning was revealed. Sin separates
(Isa. 59:1-2). Sin bring spiritual and physical death (Rom. 5:12-14; Ezek.
18:20; Heb. 2:14-15; I Cor. 15:50-58). Sin hurts and damns. Sin brings burdens,
pain and sorrows. All who believe God, obey Jesus, and walk by faith also hate
"putting away." No true believer can uphold and encourage divorcing and
remarrying. Yet God does NOW permit such in one well-defined circumstance.
In the New Testament God's original law in Eden is appealed to
and reaffirmed by Jesus and by the apostle when they taught upon the subjects of
divorcing and remarrying. Jesus taught that God's law in Eden is binding upon
human beings, believers or unbelievers, male or female, and that no one has a
cause or reason to "put away, divorce" his/her spouse and marry again in the
absence of adultery (Matt. 19:9; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11-12; I Cor. 7:10-11). To
do so is to "commit adultery," to sin against God, against one's spouse, against
oneself, and against third parties. Adultery, fornication, is always sinful,
whenever committed, by whomsoever committed! (Matt. 5:28-32; 14:1-12; 19:3-9;
Mark 6:14-29; 10:1-12; Luke 16:18; Rom. 7:1-4; I Cor. 7:1-5, 10-11, 39-40; Heb.
13:4).
Paul tells us that one may remarry after the death of his/her
spouse (Rom. 7:1-4; I Cor. 7:39). Death is the only honorable, godly way and
reason that a marriage can be terminated and the "bond" broken. Divine
permission is granted for remarriage of the widow or widower. (The law of Moses
also granted a remarriage concession to the childless widow, Deut. 25:5-10.)
The original law in Eden did not mention this but God added a codicil, an
addendum. Mormons teach blatant error when they teach about "celestial
marriages" and "being married for eternity," etc. Jesus exposed that falsehood
(Luke 20:34-38; Matt. 22:23-33). A marriage ends with the death of a spouse.
Marriage is for this present life only. Marriage does not extend into eternity.
Death ends all human, fleshly ties.
In Matthew's record of the life and teaching of Jesus our Lord
there is found an exception, a codicil, an addendum, that Jesus, the Son of God,
made to God's original law in Eden (Matt. 19:3-9). Through Moses God had made a
codicil, a supplement to His original law (Deut. 24:1-4), allowing a certain
type of man to divorce his innocent wife and permitting the innocent, moral wife
to marry another man. Jesus abolished that codicil, the allowance granted to a
"hard-hearted man" to "dismiss, divorce, and repudiate" his innocent wife for
"some uncleanness." Jesus, the Lawgiver, said that the ONLY CAUSE and REASON
that God NOW permits for dismissal and repudiation, a divorce and remarriage, is
adultery, fornication. A husband or wife can divorce ("apoluo" - "dismiss,
reject, loose, repudiate, send out of the house," etc.) his/her spouse for the
CAUSE of adultery, and whoever marries this adulterous, immoral, dismissed
husband/wife "commits adultery" in doing so. Where Deut. 24:1-4 gave divorce,
rejection rights only to a man, a husband, Jesus gave repudiation, divorce right
to women, wives, as well as to husbands (Mark 10:11-12; Gal. 3:26-29; Rom.
2:11). Where there is no adultery, there can be no divorce and remarriage
approved by God (Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11-12; I Cor 7:10-11). All New Testament
Scriptures are uniform on this point. Adultery, "whoredom," is CAUSE and REASON
for God to sever the "bond" and the "one flesh" union between a husband and
wife. Where no adultery enters the marriage covenant and union, the "bond"
remains. Where adultery does enter the marriage covenant and union, the "bond"
and "one flesh" union can be terminated. The innocent, moral, vow-keeping spouse
is granted repudiation and remarriage rights. The guilty, adulterous, immoral
spouse is not allowed repudiation and remarriage rights. This is the teaching of
Jesus in Matthew 19:3-9. This is the conviction that most all faithful brethren,
elders and preachers have taught and believed through the years. This has been
my life-long conviction. God "joins" a man and woman in the "bond" of marriage.
God severs the "bond" in the death of a spouse. He will do so also for the CAUSE
of adultery, provided the innocent spouse exercises his/her God-given concession
and right to "apoluo" ("dismiss, repudiate") the guilty, immoral mate.
"In the Gospel Advocate, this question was raised: 'If a man
divorced his wife without cause and married another, would the wife, being an
innocent party, be free to marry if her former husband and not she obtained the
divorce?' I answered 'Yes.'
"A brother wrote: 'I disagree with your answer as Matthew 19:9
says, And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for
fornication, and shall marry another committeth adultery: and he that married
her when she is put away committeth adultery.'
"He has grossly misapprehended the teaching of our Lord in this
passage. (1) He has ignored the exception that the Lord put into the verse. He
strikes out the words, 'except for fornication,' in order to deny what the Lord,
by implication, affirmed. It should read, in his view, 'Whosoever shall put away
his wife, EVEN IN THE CASE OF FORNICATION, and marries another, commits adultery
and he who marries her thus put away commits adultery.' (2) He disregards the
grammar of the passage which makes the exception clause, EXCEPT FOR FORNICATION,
modify the entire statement including the final clause, 'He that marrieth her
when she is put away committeth adultery.' (3) He rules out any occasion when an
innocent party may properly and scripturally remarry. He is therefore in grave
error in the conclusion drawn.
"To put the matter in proper perspective, let us assume the
following instance: Jane and John, both single, neither have been previously
wedded, marry. John, of weak character, soon tires of Jane and abandons her
though she is a good wife, and a faithful Christian woman. As soon as he can
conveniently do so, he contracts another marriage. Not free to remarry, his
relationship with the second woman, though legal, is adulterous. Jane, meantime,
has remained free of marital relationship, and would have received John back at
any time prior to the adulterous marriage into which he entered. Being a
Christian woman, she does not recognize the state's legal grounds for divorce,
willing only to accept the Lord's ground - fornication. By unscripturally
contracting marriage with the second woman John is now guilty of the act
constituting the exception clause of Matthew 19:9. Jane meets Bill, a fine
Christian man never before married. May she scripturally marry him? Of course
she may. To deny her this is presumptuously to pass judgment on the validity of
the Lord's edict and take from her what the Lord granted.
"Jesus said, 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, EXCEPT FOR
FORNICATION, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth
her when she is put away committeth adultery.' 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. 'But,' it may further be objected, 'Jane
and John were not living together at the time when the fornication occurred.'
Who said they had to be? To inject this condition into the exception clause, to
speak where the Lord has not spoken, is to legislate for him! Suppose, for
example, that Jane, while married to John, had suffered mental illness and
required residence and treatment in a mental hospital for five years. During the
interval John cohabited with another woman. Would Jane, because she was not
living under the same roof as John, be denied the right to put him away for
fornication'? He who so affirms has abandoned reason, revelation and good sense!
"The implications of scripture touching marriage and divorce are
crystal clear. 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. Luke
16:18 does not countermand Matthew 19:9; it simply supplements it." (Guy N.
Woods, Questions and Answers, Vol. II, pp.45-46). The above by Guy N. Woods
well states what I have believed and taught for fifty-eight years.
"From these Scriptures we see it clearly was God's purpose from
the beginning for a man and a woman to be joined together for life. Nothing is
to put them asunder but death. But we are reminded that Jesus mentioned one
exception (Matt. 19:9). He intimated that if fornication is committed the guilty
party may be divorced, or put away, and the innocent party may marry another and
not be guilty of adultery. This certainly is implied in his language as given by
Matthew. Mark and Luke do not mention this exception. It is given twice in
Matthew, but is never mentioned anywhere else…If his language is not
misunderstood, he teaches that fornication will dissolve the marriage vow and
leave the innocent party free to marry again…Our Lord was discussing what would
dissolve the marriage and thus violate the original purpose and law of marriage
given by Jehovah in the beginning (Matt. 5:31-32; 19:3-9). Paul was not
discussing any violations of this law, but merely setting forth the law (I Cor.
7:10-11). He set forth marriage as God intends for it to be - a man and woman
joined for life…No divorce is ever scriptural for both parties. When a marriage
is broken, a soul is lost…Paul does not contradict Christ. They agree upon what
the will of God on marriage is" one man and one woman joined for life. Christ
showed that a man may violate God's law and break the vow. Paul only discussed
the law, not any violations that might occur…We must always so preach the gospel
that those who come to obey it will know that they cannot obey the gospel,
cannot be forgiven and saved, unless they REPENT OF THEIR SINS. And REPENTANCE
requires them to get out of any unlawful business in which they are engaged, to
quit sinful habits or practices, and to break up any sinful relationship or
alignment in which they are bound. This includes unlawful marriages, of course…
But all GOSPEL PREACHERS stand in the pulpit and tell their audiences that
persons who are divorced for any cause except for fornication and marry again
are living in adultery…Remember that God's law concerning marriage was given at
the beginning of man's life on the earth, and it has been God's will on the
subject in all ages and applicable to all men, whether men have respected it or
not" (Matt. 19:3-9). (Excerpts from The Gospel Advocate, 1931).
Comparing and contrasting God's two codicils, addenda, in Deut. 24:1-4 and Matt.
19:3-9, provisions regarding divorce and remarriage, additions to the original
pronouncements in Eden, Gen. 2:23-24, we see the following: (1) Deut. 24:1-4,
spoken through Moses, the SERVANT of God (Heb. 3:5); spoken only to certain
"hard-hearted" Hebrew men; spoken only to such men while the law of Moses was in
force over Israel; allowed such men to divorce, repudiate, send out of the
house, a wife for "some uncleanness," when she found "no favor in his eyes;"
such a man had to give his repudiated, rejected wife a legal document, "a
writing of divorcement;" the divorced wife, being innocent of any immorality and
being a "put away" woman, could go and marry again, if she desired and if she
had opportunity; she could never return to the husband who rejected her, to
again be his wife. (2) Matthew 19:3-9: spoken by Jesus, the Son of God, the
Spokesman from God to man now (Heb. 3:6; 1:1-2; Matt. 28:18-20); spoken to
"Whosoever," i.e., every married man and woman, every husband and wife, of any
nation and culture at any time; spoken to an innocent, vow-keeping, faithful,
moral husband or wife who has a fornicating, adulterous wife or husband; allowed
that innocent, vow-keeping, faithful, moral husband/wife to divorce ("apoluo" -
"dismiss, repudiate, reject, send out of the house," etc.) his/her sinful,
immoral, adulterous husband/wife; no particular "writing of divorcement," civil
or legal procedure or document described or enjoined; the adulterous, immoral
husband/wife who was repudiated, divorced, was prohibited from remarriage;
whoever would marry the divorced, rejected, adulterous husband/wife would be
committing adultery; the innocent husband/wife could remarry without sin, not
committing adultery by so doing. Conclusion: both Moses and Jesus, revealing
God's will, allowed the innocent party to remarry. No one has a right to
legislate for Jesus and prohibit what He authorized!
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. And DW calls Jesus to
witness of his contorted theory by misapplying the three verses he quoted: Matt.
5:32, 19:9, and Luke 16:18.
Regarding those three Scriptures, he turns Matthew 19:9
"topsy-turvy" by making the "whosoever" mean a fornicating, immoral husband who
repudiates his innocent, godly wife, instead of the "whosoever" being an
innocent, true, moral husband who repudiates his immoral, fornicating wife, as
taught and contemplated by Jesus. Matthew 19:9 gives the innocent spouse the
right of divorce and remarriage, and prohibits the one put away for fornication
to remarry. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus did not give and grant the adulterous,
immoral husband/wife any "putting away" right or privilege. That right and
concession was granted only to the innocent partner. The "whosoever" is a godly,
faithful spouse, not an adulterous, unfaithful spouse. In Matthew 5:32, Jesus
says nothing about the RIGHT of remarriage for anyone! Jesus says the put away
woman is FORBIDDEN remarriage; she committeth adultery if she does so, and
anyone marrying her commits adultery. The husband did not put her away because
of fornication. He tempts and causes her to commit fornication by his action and
by her remarriage. If she had committed adultery before he put her away, then
he does not cause her to do so by putting her away She already has! Luke 16:18
DOES NOT deal with the exception clause which Jesus stated in Matthew 19:9. Our
Lord did not state the exception clause in Luke 16:18. Jesus only stated God's
law from the beginning, i.e., that we are bound to our wife/husband for life.
Any subsequent marriage would be adulterous. But and if adultery intervenes in a
marriage, the codicil of Matt. 19:9, which Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 do not
discuss, applies. DW has misused and misapplied all three of these Scriptures
and has tried to make them say and teach something Jesus did not say and teach,
all in a vain attempt to uphold his theory and opinion. He should consider what
II Timothy 2:15 says, and heed the warning in Galatians 1:6-9.
DW says: "Brother Cavender strongly believes (and tried to
convince me of it as well) that a put away wife (where no fornication was
involved) can remarry just as soon as her ex-husband remarries or has sexual
relations with another. This is nothing more than the old waiting game and
mental divorce repackaged to be more appealing." DW does NOT speak the truth.
This is a gross misrepresentation! Brother Cavender did not try to convince DW
of any such thing! Brother Cavender DOES NOT "strongly believe" that a put away
wife can remarry "JUST AS SOON AS" her ex-husband remarries or has sexual
relations with another. The very opposite is the truth! 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. (Had DW read my four articles in Truth Magazine more
carefully, he would have read this.) Jesus gave a right of remarriage to the
innocent spouse. I have never been willing to make a test of fellowship with a
divorced brother or sister who tells me that he/she has a scriptural, God-given
right of divorce and remarriage, as per Matt. 19:9. DW would exclude such ones
from fellowship, and bind where Jesus did not bind. 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. DW will create problems
over such untaught matters, matters not dealt with in God's word.
DW further multiplies his transgressions by saying above, "and
tried to convince me of it as well." All that I tried to convince DW of, in
conversation and in our correspondence was that he is misusing Scriptures and
teaching error concerning MDR. For example, I Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches that
the husband and wife are not to depart from each other, but if they do, they are
to remain unmarried to anyone else, or be reconciled to one another, and the
husband must not put away his wife. Paul said that Jesus commanded that. Where?
In Matt. 5:31-32, 19:9; Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18. Why? Because the two are "one
flesh," and they are "bound" for life. They have no right to anyone else. No
adultery has been committed. Separation from our husband or wife may create
circumstances which will tempt us to commit adultery, to be unfaithful (Matt.
5:31-32; I Cor. 7:1-5). One prime reason for marriage is to avoid fornication (I
Cor. 7:1-5). Married people need to be together, to meet each other's needs, to
care for each other. Don't separate or depart from your lawful spouse.
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. Jesus gave the innocent husband/wife the right and concession, for
the CAUSE of adultery, to repudiate and dismiss the adulterous, unfaithful
companion. DW says the innocent husband or wife cannot remarry, else he/she will
be in adultery! Why? Because the innocent, moral spouse "played the old waiting
game"! DW believes that no faithful husband or wife may remarry IF his/her
fornicating spouse beats the innocent mate to the act of repudiation and beats
the innocent mate to the civil courts for a divorce decree. 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.
Jesus never spoke about such a condition and never bound such a stipulation.
But my young brother Watts hesitates not to state the proviso and bind it. One
can never remarry unless he/she believes what brother Watts says about it!
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). God knows,
those two troubled people know, but DW does not know! Yet he and other preachers
stand on the sidelines of troubled marriages and dogmatically yell and assert
that folks' heartaches and difficulties in their marriage, which may lead to
temporary or permanent separations, is "the old waiting game" If any spouse
deliberately and willfully withholds himself/herself from the other spouse,
tempting them, desiring them to and causing them to commit adultery, then this
is another matter. Such behavior is despicable and exceedingly sinful and God
will condemn their thoughts, deeds, and their souls in sin. But this is not true
in every case! 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.
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"? Paul said, "So then with the mind I myself serve
the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin" (Romans 7:25). Joseph, upon
learning that Mary was with child, "was minded to put her away secretly," and
"while he thought on these things…" (Matt. 1:19-20). Was not this "mental
divorce" which would have led to further action, had the angel Gabriel not
intervened? Jesus said that "from within, out of the heart of men," our evil
thoughts and deeds proceed (Mark 7:20-23). Is this not "mental evil"? Jesus said
so! Paul said that "ye have obeyed from the heart…"(Rom. 6:17). Is this not
"mental obedience" which results in prescribed outward acts of obedience?
Everything a human being does in relationship to God's will, good or bad,
obedient or disobedient, including all laws pertaining to marriage, the home,
our children, etc., is "in spirit," "from the heart," is "mental" at the
beginning and then leads to the doing of our deeds, right or wrong. Lust, which
leads to adultery, is first conceived "in the heart," and is "mental lust"
(James 1:12-16; Matt. 5:27-28). "Mental divorce," "the waiting game," and all
such cliché's (as "campbellites" and "orphan haters," etc.), which are trite,
meaningless expressions, contribute nothing to the cause of truth and expose the
weaknesses of theories and causes of those who rely upon such "hackneyed
expressions," as Webster defines them.
DW says, "Innocent people sometimes live with the consequences,
for the rest of their lives, of the unlawful and unscriptural actions others
take." He says this, trying to convince his hearers and readers, that those who
believe his theory (that the innocent, faithful spouse cannot remarry when
divorced by an ungodly, adulterous, immoral husband/wife) will just have to
suffer the life-long, never-changing consequences for unfortunately having a
husband/wife who turns out to be a rascal, a cheat, an adulterer or an
adulteress, for DW says that God has decreed that the innocent must suffer! 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
This is all of any substance in David Watts, Jr.'s article which
needs particular attention. There are other statements made by him that are
deserving of notice but I have written enough. I do not plan any further
exchange with him, or any other writers, or to submit any other writings in
Gospel Truths. I have many other Bible subjects I want to think about and write
about in the time I may have left in this world. This MDR discussion is not one
of my top priorities. For clarity and full explanation of my views, which DW
calls into question and which he misrepresents in various facets, I have written
copiously. I trust brother Smith to print all of this response. I have wondered
if he agrees with everything that brother Watts has written. It would be
interesting if he would say "Yea" or "Nay."
The theory defended by DW has been vociferously and passionately
advocated in the past decade or so. I remember years ago when the divorce
problem increased dramatically after World War II, and to the present. Back then
brethren insisted that "For Adultery" had to be written on the divorce decree
from the court in order for the innocent spouse to be free to remarry. But
changes in civil laws nullified that idea and we don't hear it anymore. "For
Adultery" on the divorce paper from the civil court did not make it so or prove
it scriptural. Most of the brethren have learned that! Then it was argued that
if the innocent, put away spouse would ever be eligible to remarry, such a one
must contest the divorce in court with a counter-suit, or publicly declare
his/her innocence before the church, or talk to the elders and make a
declaration of innocence. Those ideas and stipulations have since passed and are
heard no more. NOW the theory has developed and has been refined to the point
that the innocent spouse cannot remarry if the sorry, adulterous mate beats the
innocent to repudiation and to the civil courts. DW and many others who espouse
this idea consider it "a fellowship issue," and will divide churches, alienate
brethren, and condemn as "false teachers" those who do not believe their ideas.
This is a sad period in our history as a people. This "issue" is
impractical and unnecessary. No one's marriage has been made better, no marriage
has been salvaged from divorce, nor corrected from an unlawful divorce. If so,
who and where? When marriage partners have difficulties, it is an individual,
family problem that can only be settled on a personal, family level. Elders,
preachers and all faithful brethren of good will, who are asked to assist by
listening and teaching and advising, will have to deal with these problems one
on one, person by person, family by family. The very obvious practical upshot
and glaring feature of this theory advocated by DW is that a faithful,
vow-keeping, pure husband/wife, who has the sad misfortune of learning that the
spouse has been, or is being, immoral and unfaithful, would be an absolute idiot
and imbecile if he/she did not immediately, at once, without delay, get a
lawyer, file for and obtain a divorce, and be rid of the adulterous mate.
Otherwise the innocent spouse would never again have any opportunity of
marriage, companionship and bliss, according to brother Watts! The theory
advocated by DW and others completely nullifies patience, waiting, working
through the problem, prayer, counseling, love, long-suffering, repentance,
sorrow for sin, restoration and forgiveness of the offender, conversion of the
sinner, reconciliation, and full restoration of the marriage in all facets.
Instead of being long-suffering as God is (2 Peter 3:9; Rom. 2:4), the innocent
had best act hastily to end the marriage and forget about forgiveness. The
innocent, if he/she has any foresight at all, should "beat the sinful,
adulterous spouse to the draw" and "beat him/her to the judge and the
courthouse," or else that innocent spouse can never marry again without
committing adultery. Believe it, who can? But some are doing so!
Bill Cavender,
3311 Yorkshire Court, Murfreesboro, TN 37130-1319
|