Originally Written October 12, 2004
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 (
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, Matthew. 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, Matthew 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 ‘putting 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
“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.