FOR SHAME, BRO. SMITH!

By Bill H. Reeves

 

What is the problem?  There are TWO ISSUES under consideration here:

            1. Bro. J. T. Smith’s public misrepresentation of me at the Bowling Green debate, Mar. 18, 2005, for which he refuses to apologize, and

            2. The false claim that I believe what he does about Apoluo!

                        We consider them in this order.

 

 1.  PUBLIC MISREPRESENTATION

 

            Several times in the 4-day debate, Mar. 10,11,17.18, 2005, with Bro.Tim Haile, Bro. J. T. Smith used a single chart of his that was composed of wording from two of my charts, but with an ellipsis (three dots) appearing on his one chart. Bro. Haile replied more than once that the ellipsis shows that the last part of the quote from my second chart is not to be connected to the wording of my first chart, because something is missing, and therefore Bro. Smith’s concocted chart was misleading.  Bro. Smith ignored Bro. Haile’s observation, and continued to make his argument based on his arbitrary connecting of the second part of the quote on my second chart, to the wording of my first chart. In his final speech of the debate, feeling the force of Bro. Haile’s objection, Bro. Smith said, in reference to me, that “he left out something.” He went on to say, “I figured if he had wanted me to know what it was he would put it there.”  Also, he said: “I don't know what he meant to say.  He left it out.”   (In these quoted statements, the “he” each time refers to Bro. Reeves).

            That audience, and all who hear / see the debate by recording in time to come, are left with the false accusation that Bro. Reeves put those dots (ellipsis) in his chart that Bro. Smith. copied from my two charts. But that is not true; audiences are being misled.  I wrote Bro. Smith asking him to apologize for affirming that I was the one who left out some words (indicated by the dots), when in reality someone else did!  (I did not know at the time of writing him just who left out the words and supplied several dots instead).

            Please read the following exchange of correspondence.  You will see that Bro. Smith, in his reply to my letter, and in his May, 2005 editorial in GOSPEL TRUTHS, refused to apologize for misleading the Bowling Green audience of Mar. 18, 2005 (and future audiences, by recordings)He misrepresented me and misled the audience, charging me with having done what now admittedly he himself did!

 In his editorial he dodges the issue of correcting a misrepresentation of me by stating, “Brother Reeves wrote me and said that I had done him a disservice by leaving that part out.”  I did not such thing!  The reader of the following exchange of correspondence can judge for himself.  I asked Bro. J. T. to apologize for publicly claiming that I did what someone else did!  (My reference to “disservice” applied only if someone else besides Bro. Smith had put the ellipsis in the chart).  I did not know at the time that Bro. Smith himself put the ellipsis in!  At the time I could not believe that Bro. Smith himself would do such a thing and then boldly tell an audience that I had done it!  So I wrote: “If someone else prepared that doctored chart for you, he did you (and me, and the audience) a great disservice, and needs to be exposed.”  Read it below.  Bro. Smith continues to mislead his audience (readers): I did not say that Bro. Smith did me a disservice; I said “he did you (and me, and the audience) a great disservice.” Bro. Smith can read better than that! 

In the debate Bro. Smith charged me with making the ellipsis and said: “I don’t know what he meant to say. He left it out.”  In his editorial he says that he (J. T. Smith) left out the ellipsis “because we were not discussing Civil procedure.”  In his letter to me he said “I did not look back at the original chart to see what it said. I should have. I had forgotten that I left that part out.”  Although he admits to me, but not to the public, that he forgot that he was the one who made the ellipsis, he still offers no apology at all for misrepresenting me to the public. Is it too much for Bro. J. T. Smith to say, “I am sorry, Bro. Reeves, that I misrepresented you publicly, claiming that YOU put the ellipsis in my chart when in reality I am the one who put it in”?  Apparently it is.  How sad.

Now read, please, my letter to Bro. Smith, his reply to me, and his May 2005 editorial in Gospel Truths.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

MY LETTER TO BRO. SMITH,  April 11, 2005:

 

Dear Bro. Smith:

            I apologize for not getting to you sooner concerning a serious matter, but I have been hindered from doing so.  I just returned from a preaching trip to Spain (and I leave tomorrow on another trip). 

I am pleased with the conduct of both you and Bro. Haile in conducting the debate held in Tulsa and in Bowling Green, and I readily recognize that both sides of the issue were well presented.  I look forward to many brethren’s reading/seeing the debate by recordings.  But I am writing at this time to ask you to publicly correct a falsehood that was left in the minds of the audiences, both in Tulsa, and in Bowling Green, in reference to one of your charts on which you repeatedly displayed as a quote from my writings, with an ellipsis included, and presented the conclusion that I agreed with you on the definition of Apoluo, and not with Bro. Haile for whom I moderated. 

You clearly gave to the audience the idea that I, Bill Reeves, inserted the three dots (indicating an ellipsis); that I was the one who purposely left out some words.

I ask you: Who prepared that chart for you?  I am confident that you did not do it, because had you done it, YOU would have seen that there is no ellipsis in the wording of my two charts from which the doctored quotes are taken.  You would have known that you yourself would have to omit something in order for the doctored quote to serve your purpose.  So, you did not make that chart, did you? Yet you told the audience Friday night in Bowling Green, in your second affirmative speech, that, in reference to me, “he left out something.” You went on to say, “I figured if he had wanted me to know what it was he would put it there.”  Also, you said: “I don't know what he meant to say.  He left it out.” 

Bro. Smith, anyone who checks my two charts, from which your one chart was constructed with the ellipsis, will see that I did not leave out ANYTHING!  If someone else prepared that doctored chart for you, he did you (and me, and the audience) a great disservice, and needs to be exposed.  I expect you to tell me who the person is.  But you need to apologize for telling the audience something as fact that you did not know!  That chart of yours is now circulating among brethren on web site, disk and cassette.

I expect a correction of this lie, left in the minds of the audience, and going out in circulation to many who were not at the debate, in either place, as the recordings of the debate are circulated. 

You should make the correction:

1. stating that you claimed that Bro. Reeves made the ellipsis, leaving out words, and that you made that claim with no basis whatsoever for doing it, and that what you said is false.

2. admitting that the ellipsis changes the meaning of two separate quotes of Bro. Reeves, and gives the impression that they are one continual thought, representing me as agreeing with you on the word Apoluo, and disagreeing with Bro. Haile.  I do NOT agree with you and the doctored chart that you used totally misrepresents me.

3. stating that anyone who checks the two charts of Bro. Reeves, from which one was doctored on purpose, can plainly see that Bro. Reeves did NOT construct your chart that has the ellipsis and was presented repeatedly as a construct of mine.

4. admitting that there is no ellipsis at all in the two charts of Bro. Reeves that are numbered at the bottom of your chart that gives a quote as from me.  (The fact that your chart has the numbering of both of my charts should have told you that material from two charts doesn’t normally fit on one chart, unless something is omitted!) 

Brethren can check for themselves (as you should have done before accepting that doctored chart) by going to Tim Haile’s web site (Biblebanner.com) and looking at charts #186 and #187.  The two charts of mine read thusly:

 

CHART # 186

            The spouse that puts away, or repudiates, his mate looses him, or severs him, from acceptance in marriage.  This is the meaning of Apoluo.

            He explicitly declares to the mate that he no longer wills to live in marriage with the mate.  He releases him; he declares him repudiated. That’s not merely mental / thought process; that’s action!

 

CHART #187

            Civil procedure is a process that follows this and that often takes much time to complete.  In the meantime, the two spouses are separated (unmarried—not living together).

 

Your chart, containing part of two charts of mine, was designed to show that I agree with you, and am at odds with Bro. Haile, on the matter of Apoluo.  That is wherein the lie consists.  What is on the first of my TWO charts is one thought, and the SECOND chart of mine introduces a completely DIFFERENT thought from the first (“Civil procedure is a process that follows this”).  No wonder that whoever made the chart that you used put three dots between the two different thoughts!  Bro. Haile repeatedly, in answer to your unjust use of the contrived chart, stated that your quote of Bro. Reeves’ two charts has an ellipsis in it, and that the last phrase is different from the first part of the quote.  But, finally you, it appears to me, in desperation, attributed the ellipsis TO ME!  How did you know that, Bro. Smith?  How could you boldly make that claim?  You had to guess that (and erred), but you boldly stated it as fact!  If you did not make that chart, how could you, without investigation, be sure just who put the ellipsis in it?

If someone else made that chart, he owes you an apology.  You had confidence in that person and went ahead and repeatedly used the chart.  But that does not excuse you for claiming without any proof at all that I put that ellipsis in it.  Now that you know that I did not put it in (if this is your first knowledge), you owe me an apology and to that person who concocted that chart you owe a rebuke.  I might ask: What has the brother been thinking who heard you claim that I put the ellipsis in the chart yet knows that he is the one who did it, and he had not told you so (if indeed someone besides you constructed the chart)?

This requested apology should be circulated in GOSPEL TRUTHS.  A statement of the apology also ought to be sent to Bro. Bennie Johns to include in the mail-out of his CDs of the debate, and sent also to Jeff Belknap to put on his web site, since he has put all of your charts on his site.

I believe that you will do this that is honorable, because I consider you an honorable man.  If another constructed that chart that you used, I am sorry to learn that there are brethren who will purposely misrepresent a brother, and in this case, allow you to unwittingly think that the chart is legitimate, that it contains an ellipsis of mine.  (Even though you might have thought that it was mine, you did not know that, and therefore you are without excuse in affirming that I put that ellipsis there).

That chart needs to be speedily withdrawn from circulation.  I presently conclude that that ellipsis was inserted by one of your helpers in order to misrepresent me, and truth is not served by such carnal tactics.  I say that another must have made the chart because I cannot presently believe that you yourself made the chart, putting in an ellipsis, and then publicly affirming that I put it in!  That would not be the J. T. Smith that I have known of through the years.  So, please tell me just who made that chart, and speedily see that an apology is forthcoming. 

Thank you, my brother.   Yours, Bill H. Reeves

Spanish web site / sitio web:

billhreeves.com

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

May 4, 2005,  BRO. J. T. SMITH’S REPLY TO MY LETTER

 

Brother Reeves,

I received your rather lengthy letter while I was in Everett, Washington in a gospel meeting. Sorry about taking so long to reply.

            I made the chart. After reading the complete statement of the charts as you sent them, I remembered making the chart as I presented it. It was one of the first ones I made. Since I knew we were not going to discuss civil authority I simply left the part out but during the discussion I did not look back at the original chart to see what it said. I should have. I had forgotten that I left that part out. However, if the ellipsis had been left in, how would it have changed the meaning of the chart? It perfectly describes the period of time in which the meaning of apoluo still subsisted as you correctly stated in your last sentence of your second chart. "In the meantime, (while the civil procedure was taking place- jts) the two spouses are separated (unmarried—not living together)." The problem is not with the ellipsis. The problem is that your chart blows your entire theory out of the water.

I think we know who was "doing things in desperation" - we will let the listeners decide.

I am correcting the chart in my Editorial in the May issue of GT. Until, however, you point out to me how the ellipsis changed the meaning of the chart in any way I will continue to use it. It is a good chart and teaches the truth.   Brotherly, J. T.

 

 

BRO. SMITH’S EDITORIAL IN GOSPEL TRUTHS (May 2005)

 

In Bro. Smith’s editorial in GOSPEL TRUTHS, May 2005, p. 3, in reference to my request for an apology for attributing to me what he himself did, he wrote:

 

As one proponent of this position said of ‘apoluo,’:

 

 

 

 

 



      “During the debate with Tim Haile I used the above statements by brother Bill Reeves because it teaches the truth as we both understand the word apoluo. In the quotation I left out ("Civil procedure is a process that follows this and that often takes much time to complete. In the mean-time") because we were not discussing Civil procedure. Brother Reeves wrote me and said that I had done him a disservice by leaving that part out. However, as I told brother Reeves in reply, I see nothing in the part that was left out that would in any way change the thought or meaning of his statement.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

MY REVIEW OF BRO. SMITH’S LETTER OF REPLY TO ME:

 

A.  Bro. Smith, in replying to my letter to him, writes:

I made the chart. After reading the complete statement of the charts as you sent them, I remembered making the chart as I presented it. It was one of the first ones I made. Since I knew we were not going to discuss civil authority I simply left the part out but during the discussion I did not look back at the original chart to see what it said. I should have. I had forgotten that I left that part out.”

Answer: He here confesses (to me privately) that he made the chart with the ellipsis in it, the one shown repeatedly in the debate.  But, where is his apology for telling the Bowling Green audience, and as many as will read/hear the debate, that Bro. Reeves put the ellipsis in?  Has Bro. Smith no humility about him?  Why, he didn’t as much as publish in his editorial this explanation for what he had done (even though it contains no apology)!  This is why I say, “For shame, Bro. Smith.”

Saying “I forgot” is not a satisfactory explanation for his emphatic false claims in Bowling Green, nor is it an APOLOGY!  Would Bro. Smith appreciate being publicly misrepresented three times and then receive only a statement that the one misrepresenting him so emphatically did so simply because he “forgot?”   Dear reader: would you feel that nothing more was forthcoming than a simple “I forgot?” THAT CORRECTS A PUBLIC MISREPRESENTATION?  To privately say “I forgot” gives an explanation to one person, but does not correct a repeated, public misrepresentation.

 

B. He continues to say:

 “However, if the ellipsis had been left in, how would it have changed the meaning of the chart? It perfectly describes the period of time in which the meaning of apoluo still subsisted as you correctly stated in your last sentence of your second chart. "In the meantime, (while the civil procedure was taking place- jts) the two spouses are separated (unmarried—not living together)." The problem is not with the ellipsis. The problem is that your chart blows your entire theory out of the water. I am correcting the chart in my Editorial in the May issue of GT. Until, however, you point out to me how the ellipsis changed the meaning of the chart in any way I will continue to use it. It is a good chart and teaches the truth.”

1. “However, if the ellipsis had been left in, how would it have changed the meaning of the chart?”

Answer: It would have shown the audience the context in which I made that statement that you out of context wanted to lead the audience to connect directly with the statement concerning Apoluo that was on the first chart of mine!  That’s the difference.  If you had wanted to correctly represent me, you would have presented my two charts in their entirety.  From that you could have drawn any conclusion you desired, but the audience would have had their own conclusion to draw!

            2. “It perfectly describes the period of time in which the meaning of apoluo still subsisted as you correctly stated in your last sentence of your second chart.”

            Answer: No, the meaning of Apoluo does not “still subsist(ed).”  That’s your ipse dixit.  Apoluo means repudiate, reject, dismiss.  It does not mean spatially separate, or put distance between, and you have never cited a Greek authority that so claims!  The physical separation of two spouses is the result, or consequence, of the action of Apoluo.  (If there are two partners in a work, and one vilifies the other, and from that there results a separation, cannot the one who was vilified now vilify the other one?  Once vilified, the one vilified can’t vilify?  Tell that to the one who is vilified!

            Apoluo means “dismiss,” or “repudiate,” according to Thayer.  Many, many versions translate Apoluo as repudiate.  Repudiate means: “1. to refuse to have anything to do with; to disown; to cast off publicly, as a son, or divorce, as a wife.  2. to refuse to accept, or acknowledge; to deny the validity or authority of.  Syn.— disavow, disown, discard, abjure, renounce, disclaim” (Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary).

            I did not “correctly state(d)” in my last sentence of my second chart that the meaning of Apoluo still subsisted.  After the action of Apoluo, repudiation (my point in my first chart), a physical separation occurs and continues during the time of the civil divorce proceedings.  That is the point of my second chart.

            3. “’In the meantime, (while the civil procedure was taking place- jts) the two spouses are separated (unmarried—not living together).’ The problem is not with the ellipsis. The problem is that your chart blows your entire theory out of the water.”

            Answer: Yes, the problem is with the ellipsis that publicly Bro. Smith repeatedly affirmed that I put (somewhere) in my two charts.  I put no such ellipsis in either chart!  He did it.  Does an ellipsis mean anything at all to Bro. Smith?  Is he content for others to quote two sources of information from him, put an ellipsis in, claiming that he did it, then make one statement of the two, and attribute their conclusion to him?  That is what he did!  That is his way of “blowing a theory out of the water!”

            4. “I am correcting the chart in my Editorial in the May issue of GT. Until, however, you point out to me how the ellipsis changed the meaning of the chart in any way I will continue to use it. It is a good chart and teaches the truth.”

            AnswerNo, he did not correct the chart (that he concocted for the debate) in his editorial of the May issue of GT.  To correct the chart that he made for the debate he should have shown a chart with my two separate, distinct charts on it (instead on one chart with an ellipsis in it)!  At the bottom of his concocted chart for the debate he had the numbers of my two charts; so why didn’t he in the editorial simply build a chart showing on it the two numbered charts of mine?  That would have corrected his concocted chart for the debate with the ellipsis in it.  Why not let the audience decide what my two charts teach? 

But, what did he do in the editorial?  He showed a box (that would naturally indicate a chart).  Check it again above where I cite his May 2005 editorial.  He writes: “As one proponent of this position said of ‘Apoluo,’:”  The reader naturally expects that what follows his colon will be a direct quote of what one of his opponents has said.  But not so; that box of his does not contain the exact wording of what his opponent (Reeves) has said!  He puts a title in his box, which I did not have in my chart.  He then between quotation marks gives what I did have in my two charts, but not divided as I divided the charts.  (He twice has “her” where I have “him,” but I’ll overlook that). This box has three bullets; my charts have none! Compare this box with my two charts as given above in my letter to him!  Surely the editor of a journal knows that misrepresenting a source is not allowed even in a 7th grade English class!

                        (a) His first bullet is only part of my first chart!

                        (b) His second bullet contains the last part of my first chart combined with the content of my second chart!

                        (c) His third bullet is a repetition of the last half of my second chart!

                        Bro. Smith has chopped my two charts to pieces and combined them in a way to suit his purposes.  This is his way of shooting a theory out of the water!

            His editorial makes a worse rent of what was done in his concocted chart displayed repeatedly in the Haile-Smith debate. His readers will not detect this at all, since he did not put in his editorial what he wrote to me privately: “I am correcting the chart in my Editorial in the May issue of GT.”  The readers do not see that Bro. Smith’s box in his editorial is a “correct(ion)” of what he presented in the debate; he doesn’t tell them so. He keeps it from them. Bro. Smith simply will not apologize nor desist in misrepresenting a brother in Christ.  For shame!

            This simple question will show the dishonesty of Bro. Smith in so presenting his “box:”  Can anyone tell from Bro. Smith’s boxed-in material in his editorial just which is Bro. Reeves’ chart # 185, and which is his #186?  Of course not; no one can!  Bro. Smith not only put an ellipsis in his debate chart (claiming that I put it in), but here in his editorial he concocts his corrected (?) box to run together what he wants run-together!  Where is his honesty?  Is this the way he would want his writings to be handled?  Surely he has heard of the Golden Rule!

            He wants to know “how the ellipsis changed the meaning of the chart in any way.” Simple: the ellipsis (the part omitted) takes from the audience / reader the fact that two distinct charts, representing two distinct thoughts, are involved.  All Bro. Smith needed to do in the debate, and in his editorial, was to show my two charts, and make any point concerning them that he cared to do, but, of course, that would not so easily lead his audience as he desired.  The ellipsis would help him to misrepresent me as believing and teaching what he does; that is, make Apoluo mean physically separate, or put distance between!  He wanted the word “separated” from my second chart to be joined to the definition of “Apoluo” in my first chart.  How accomplish that?  By the ellipsis!  I categorically deny that the last part of my second chart can rightly be attached to the first chart.

            Actually his readers have no idea that this editorial box is intended to be a correction of a matter.  Bro. Smith refuses to publicly admit what he privately admitted to me (concerning his public affirmation in reference to the ellipsis), and although he promises to me privately that he will make a correction, he does not publicly inform his readers that his box is his promised correction of a matter!

            He knows that his ellipsis is important to him in this case, because in his editorial, he did not give my two charts as stand-alones, but chopped them up to suit his purpose!  He did add to the mix the ellipsis, but connected it all up to suit his purpose.  And, he tells me, he intends to continue to use his debate chart with the ellipsis.  Yes, it is a good chart for misrepresentation!

 

II. THE FALSE CLAIM THAT I BELIEVE WHAT HE DOES ABOUT “APOLUO”

 

A. In Bro. Smith’s May 2005 editorial in GT, he writes:

During the debate with Tim Haile I used the above statements by brother Bill Reeves because it teaches the truth as we both understand the word apoluo. In the quotation I left out ("Civil procedure is a process that follows this and that often takes much time to complete. In the mean-time") because we were not discussing Civil procedure. Brother Reeves wrote me and said that I had done him a disservice by leaving that part out. However, as I told brother Reeves in reply, I see nothing in the part that was left out that would in any way change the thought or meaning of his statement.”

1. “During the debate with Tim Haile I used the above statements by brother Bill Reeves because it teaches the truth as we both understand the word apoluo.”

Answer: He “used the above statements,” but they were taken from two distinct charts of mine.  He doesn’t say that he took the two charts of Bro. Reeves and presented them as one chart with an ellipsis.  What he took arbitrarily, and out of context, are two statements, isolated from my two charts, and he presented them in his chart in a way to misrepresent Bro. Reeves!  He presented in the debate a contrived chart of his, made up of one of my charts, and part of another, and joined them together as if one chart, and told the audience at Bowling Green that Bro. Reeves put in the ellipsis that is in his concocted chart.  That is what he did!  Here in his editorial he makes no mention of what he said in the Bowling Green debate, that Bro. Reeves was the one who put in the ellipsis that appears in Bro. Smith’s debate chart.

No, Bro. Smith and I do not “understand the word apoluo” alike.  Not at all! What I believe about the definition of Apoluo is in my first of the two charts that Bro. Smith runs together with an ellipsis (and he tells me that he will continue to do so!).  What he believes about the meaning of Apoluo, as he sets it forth in his May 2005 editorial, is first one thing, and then another!  First he tells his readers that Apoluo means “put away, dismiss, depart, send away.”  This he can show in Thayer’s lexicon (excepting “put away”).  But then a few lines later he writes, concerning “put away,” “dismiss, depart, send away; break up of a marriage; severing, separating.”  Question: Now where in Thayer’s work does he read what he added to “dismiss, depart, send away?”  He slipped in some of his own definitions (break up of a marriage, severing, separating)!  Did he think that we would not catch that?  In Thayer there is no “break up of a marriage, severing, separating” as definitions of Apoluo!  (More on this later below).

2. “In the quotation I left out (“Civil procedure is a process that follows this and that often takes much time to complete.  In the mean-time”) because we were not discussing Civil procedure.”

Answer: In his editorial Bro. Smith tells his readers that he “left out” the part of my second chart’s text that he has in parentheses and bold type.  Here he admits that he had a specific purpose in leaving out those words of mine in my second chart.  But, he says nothing to his readers about “forgetting” (as he does in his private letter to me!). It is a little hard to believe that he forgot what he purposely had done! He offers no apology for what he said publicly in Bowling Green (in neither the letter to me nor in his editorial).  He just can’t bring himself to say, “I’m sorry, Bro. Reeves; I said publicly that you left out those words, but it was I who did it.”  In his editorial he simply says “I left out,” and gives his reason for it, but he doesn’t connect that to the public misrepresentation of me in the Bowling Green debate.

If one wants to see the concocted chart that Bro. Smith used in the debate with Bro. Haile, just take my two charts (given above in my letter to him), leave out the part  of my second chart that in bold font he mentions here in his editorial as purposely omitted, and in its place put three dots (the ellipsis). In that way one will see run together the wording of my first chart and the last part of my second chart.

3. “Brother Reeves wrote me and said that I had done him a disservice by leaving that part out. However, as I told brother Reeves in reply, I see nothing in the part that was left out that would in any way change the thought or meaning of his statement.”

Answer: Our brother continues to misrepresent me and to mislead his audience.  I did not write to Bro. Smith and tell him that he had done me a disservice! In his editorial he dared not give the quote of what I actually wrote him concerning “disservice,” but rather he changed what I wrote.  Here is what I wrote: “If someone else prepared that doctored chart for you, he did you (and me, and the audience) a great disservice, and needs to be exposed.  I expect you to tell me who the person is” (bold type and underlining mine, bhr). At the time of writing Bro. Smith I did not know just who put the ellipsis in his chart, but I certainly didn’t think that he had done it, or else he would not have repeatedly said in the Bowling Green debate that I was the one who put it in.  As I have already remarked: Bro. Smith continues to mislead his audience (readers): I did not say that Bro. Smith did me a disservice; I said “he did you (and me, and the audience) a great disservice.” Any editor can read better than that!

He says that he sees nothing in the part that was left out (on purpose) that would in any way change the thought or meaning of “his statement.” (In his letter to me—see it above—he wrote, “change the meaning of the chart,” not statement!)  To just what “statement” of mine is he here referring?  This is confusing language. I suppose that he means by “his statement” the remainder of my second chart. The issue is that the part left out on purpose allows the rest of my second chart to be more easily joined to what is in my first chart, and in this way a chart of his can be concocted to make it appear that I agree with his false position regarding the definition of Apoluo. The part left out by Bro. Smith is part and parcel of my second chart!  The fact remains that Bro. Smith deliberately created a chart, put at the bottom of it in small font the numbers of my two charts, but did not give the texts of my two charts!  He doctored them, leaving out on purpose half of my second chart so as to manipulate the minds of his hearers / readers toward a false conclusion that misrepresents me!

The last statement on the chart just preceding the first of the two charts of mine that Bro. Smith doctored, states: “The putting-away, or repudiation, occurs before the civil procedure.” Bro. Smith, having gone over my charts, conveniently left out this statement that shows that I distinguish between the action of Apoluo and the separation that follows.

 

B. In the May 2005 editorial in GT, Bro. Smith also writes:

            “Apoluo As Used in New Testament

            “The words ‘put away’ are translated from the Greek word apoluo.  ‘Apoluo’ (put away, dismiss, depart, send away) is a word the Holy Spirit used for the break up of a marriage. When used in relation to husband and wife, it speaks of total rejection of a spouse, a break up of a marriage, a severing (separating – Matthew 19:6) of the marriage relationship.

            “What is there left to ‘put away’ (apoluo) after a break up, severing, separating of the marriage relationship?  What, I say is left, what is there to ‘put away’ (dismiss, depart, send away; break up of a marriage; severing, separating).  None of this can be done as it has already been done and the marriage is gone.”

            Answer: I have already above referred to the subtleties of Bro. Smith as he defines Apoluo.  But again notice that he first gives proper definitions of the word Apoluo, even as Thayer for the most part gives them.  But then Bro. Smith slips in, on his own authority, the definitions that his faulty position demands!  Look again at the part of his editorial cited just before this paragraph, and which he puts in bold type.  This is what he does:

                        1. First he properly defines Apoluo: dismiss, depart, send away.

                        2. Then he claims that this word is used by the Holy Spirit “for the break up of a marriage.” Proof, Bro. Smith! Where in the scriptures do you read of “a break up of a marriage?” That is your language.  The Holy Spirit uses Apoluo to show what one spouse does to another spouse, his mate!  He dismisses, or repudiates, him.  Yes, a physical separation of the two most likely will result from that, but Apoluo doesn’t mean something done to “a marriage relationship.”

                        3. He then tells us what the truth of the matter is, saying, “When used in relation to husband and wife it speaks of total rejection of a spouse.”  But he doesn’t stop here, because his “marital status” argument has not yet been established, and it is germane to his false position!  He goes on say what is not in the word Apoluo, what is not in his own first definition of Apoluo as he gives it in the first sentence of the quote above from his editorial!

                        4. He then adds to his correct statement, “it speaks of total rejection of a spouse,” the following: a break up of a marriage, a severing (separating—Matthew 19:6) of the marriage relationship.”  Bro. Smith interjects Matt. 19:6, but surely he knows that Apoluo does not appear in that passage.  He wants “separation” in Apoluo, and goes to a passage for it that does not employ Apoluo!  In Matt. 19:6 Jesus uses Chorizo (leave, as in 1 Cor. 7:10,11), employing synecdoche, wherein a part is put for the whole.  The “putting asunder” (Chorizo, leaving) is put for the whole process of repudiating (Apoluo) a mate, leaving (Chorizo) the mate and no longer keeping the vows and commitments made by the two when God joined them in marriage. Does Bro. Smith need to be reminded of the simple fact that no one leaves, or depart from, a mate in marriage without a reason?  Simple, physical separation is not necessarily “putting asunder”(Chorizo), or else a husband could go to the grocery store and the wife, seeing him leave her, could conclude that he has put asunder the marriage covenant that they together had made.  No, when a husband does what Chorizo means, the wife will know because he will have already made known to her the reason: repudiation, rejection, dismissal (Apoluo)!

            Bro. Smith and his colleagues insert spatial separation into Apoluo, and then “triumphantly” claim that once there has been a “break up of a marriage,” the one put away cannot Apoluo!  Let them define Bible terms with their own definitions and they can “prove” anything!

            Two people vow in making a marriage covenant, and two people can disavow!  If one without the cause of fornication does it (disavows, repudiates, rejects, dismisses), physical separation will likely result because he will precipitate it.  But the other, if a faithful spouse, and not having the cause of fornication, will not Apoluo (disavow, repudiate, reject, dismiss) and thus will not be guilty of precipitating a physical separation. The action of the ungodly spouse does not free him from the marriage bond, nor cause him to cease to be the husband or wife of the mate he repudiated.  Ungodly action does not deprive the innocent, faithful spouse of his divine right to repudiate a mate who commits fornication.  God gives and controls that right, not sinful man!  God’s permission does not hinge on man’s ungodly action, some of my brethren to the contrary.

            We remind Bro. Smith, and his sympathizers, of the simple fact that Jesus spoke of APOLUO A HUSBAND, OR WIFE, not a marriage!  Apoluo refers to what a spouse does to a mate, not to a marriage.  Surely Bro. Smith has read all the pertinent passages where Apoluo appears in reference to what one may or may not do to a spouse!  Arguing on a secular definition that the world has for divorce (see Webster’s dictionary), that is, “the legal dissolution of a marriage,” Bro. Smith and others want to Apoluo a marriage!  That is all that they want to see when Apoluo is activated.

They would do well to consider the simple fact that there is more to the marriage covenant than simply physical, fleshly union.  There is leaving and cleaving, commitment, vows, covenant, divine witnessing and bond. Thayer says that Apoluo, as to divorce, means “dismiss, repudiate.” A spouse, who without divine cause repudiates his mate, rejects him, thus breaking his vows. He dismisses him from all that the spouse had vowed in reference to him, repudiating him as a mate in the marriage covenant that they had made. As a result or consequence of this action (Apoluo), he departs from the mate and there follows a physical separation of the one flesh relationship. Here Chorizo (depart, 1 Cor. 7:11; Mat. 19:6) comes into the picture. But in this case the Apoluo action was NOT FOR THE CAUSE OF FORNICATION; so, still the marriage bond remains (and Bro. Smith believes it), and still they two continue to be husband and wife (and Bro. Smith believes it), because God does not release them from their marriage bond.  So, when fornication occurs, the innocent, faithful spouse is granted permission to repudiate the fornicator-mate, and to remarry.  What the ungodly spouse might have already done has no bearing on the divine permission.  God controls that!

Bro. Smith will not apologize for his public misrepresentation of me as being the one who put in the ellipsis that, as it turns out, he himself put in!

He continues to misrepresent me as believing what he does on the word Apoluo, accomplishing this misrepresentation by doctoring my charts, and he tells me that he intends to continue to use his concocted chart.  So, there is little value in my calling upon him again to discontinue using it.  Apparently the misrepresentation will go on.

For shame, Bro. Smith!

 

Concluding remarks:

 

            1. In order to Apoluo, God does not require that the innocent spouse be able to effect a physical separation between himself and the fornicator-mate, but that he have the cause of fornication.  Some brethren require spatial separation; God requires cause!  They add to what God requires.

            2. Jesus, in Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11,12; and Luke 16:18 teaches that whoever Apoluo’s a mate, not having the cause of fornication for doing so:

                        a. causes that mate to commit adultery (upon remarriage, which thing the mate is likely to do)

                        b. he himself, should he marry again, commits adultery

                        c. anyone marrying the mate so put away commits adultery

            3. By implication, stating the exception clause (“except for fornication”), Jesus teaches that the innocent, faithful spouse, upon Apoluoing the fornicator-mate and remarrying, does not commit adultery.

            4. Some brethren are not content with what Jesus teaches.  They take phrases from his teaching in the scenario in which no fornication is involved in the Apoluoing, and arbitrarily apply them to cases where the cause of fornication is now in evidence.  Thus they add their provisos to the teaching of Jesus, and are dividing the brotherhood over it as they cancel gospel meetings of preachers who don’t accept their scruple, and otherwise they disfellowship brethren.  They subjugate cause to procedure, the requirement of Jesus to the provisos of men.  Thus they pervert the Scriptures, albeit (admittedly in many cases) with good intentions.  How sad!

            We call upon them to desist in their divisive work and to keep their scruples to themselves, and there can be peace.

* * *

Footnote:

I am prepared to receive what inevitably will come from some brethren when this article is read: “Bro. Reeves got his feelings hurt, is being petty, is whining, whimpering, begging for sympathy, making a mountain out of a molehill,” “and such like” (Gal. 5:21)..  It will come from brethren who are not like Jesus (Heb. 1: 8,9), for they are not concerned with uprightness and righteousness for all and at all times, but with supporting their party and those who lead it, whether he is right or wrong. But, with that carnal spirit, what else can they do?  So, to such I say: Bring it on; there’s nothing new under the sun. I am concerned with being right with God, cost what it may. Others may evade the issue as they choose.

 

 

Spanish web site / sitio web:
billhreeves.com



Apoluo (put away) Means Action

·     The spouse that puts away, or repudiates, his mate looses him, or severs him, from acceptance in marriage.           This is the meaning of Apoluo.

·    “He explicitly declares to the mate that he no longer wills to live in marriage with the mate. He releases her; he declares her repudiated. That’s not merely mental / thought process; that’s action.  Civil procedure is a process that fol-lows this and that  often  takes  much time to complete.   In the mean-time,  the  two  spouses  are     separated (unmar-ried---not living together).

·  The two spouses are separated  (unmarried---not  liv-ing together).”          (Bill Reeves’ charts 185, 188 used during his debate with Joel Guinn).