Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
October 24, 1963
NUMBER 25, PAGE 1,11-13c

Answer To Moyer's Reply - (No. I)

Gene Frost

I am truly sorry that brother Lloyd Moyer has seen fit to engage in further effort to foster his new theory instead of recognizing and admitting its error and disowning it. It is destined to bear his name as the one who has systematized and popularized it, even as the "Fuqua Theory" identifies the author of the theory that the alien sinner is not amenable to the law of Christ. Lloyd is too able a preacher and has contributed too much to the cause of Christ for his name to pass unto future generations in infamy, and my love for him is too great for it to happen without some effort on my part to turn him from it. And so it is with the prayer that he may see the error of his teaching and disown it that I attempt an answer to his "reply" to my review of the theory he now advocates. I hope, sincerely so, that he may immediately recognize the fallacy of this new theory.

The first article of his "reply" is devoted primarily to an effort to minimize the effects and ramifications of the theory through an over-simplification of the issue. "Points of Agreement" are listed that only skirt the issue whereas the items fully stated reveal a great disagreement, more than Lloyd is desirous to admit. We shall show this to be so when we review the points, following an examination of the texts discussed in his second "reply" article.

Matthew 19:9 Jesus taught: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery."

We introduced this statement in our review to show that Lloyd's contention — that a second marriage voids the previous marriage so that no adultery is committed after the initial act of cohabitation in the new marriage — is not so. When a man puts away his wife (without the cause of fornication) and marries again, Lloyd says, "by that very act of adultery the first marriage was defiled, adulterated and therefore dissolved." Again, "no marriage exists." Therefore when the put away party remarries no adultery could be committed. Jesus said, "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery?' Where the cause of divorcement is something other than unfaithfulness, neither party is free to remarry — both commit adultery in the second marriage. Lloyd contends that there is just one act of adultery and that by the one remarrying first so that any other acts of cohabitation in marriage by either party thereafter is not adulterous. Jesus Himself contradicts this new theory. This we pointed out in our review, but Lloyd saw fit not to "reply" to it.

Not only is adultery committed in both instances cited by Jesus, but each act of cohabitation is adulterous. This is borne out in the tense that Jesus used. Tense in the Greek language denotes progress, The present tense "signifies action in progress, or state in persistence" (page 182, A Manual Grammar of the Greek N.T., Dana and Mantey.) "The fundamental significance of the aorist is to denote action simply as occurring, without reference to progress." (Page 193, Dana and Mantey, op. cit.) As a verb is present indicative, it means that the action of the verb is in progress or state of persistence. For example:

I John 3:9 — "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin....and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." "Commit" is present indicative and denotes continual action. We ask Lloyd, is the progress of the verb "continued action" or is "to make it so" a mistake? The Baptists will appreciate Lloyd's argument. They assume the same thing.... and both are wrong!

Even so, when Jesus said that the unlawful divorced man marries, he commits adultery: commits repetitious acts of adultery!

For Lloyd's assumption to be true "committeth adultery" would be future enlist. The fact that the present stem permits the aoristic use in the indicative mood does not help Lloyd's contention at all, for then it simply "sets forth an event as now occurring." (Page 9, Moods and Tenses of N.T. Greek, Burton.) Furthermore, the action then occurring is "coincident in time with the act of speaking" (Ibid.). In other words, to grant the contention of some that the action is punctiliar in Matthew 19:9, it would mean that Jesus was saying that whoever in the future divorced and remarried were then committing adultery at the time He spoke! This would demand an absurd interpretation and shows that the tense is not an aoristic use but is the pure present.

Lloyd knows, and those who stand with him know and admit, that as the verb is the pure present tense the whole position he advocates crumbles. He cannot prove the punctiliar action his theory demands, so he pretends that in effect tenses indicate nothing in particular and with no certainty. But that Matthew 19:9 is present tense is not denied by Lloyd.

(Not only did Lloyd fail to prove his case that the future action is punctiliar, one act of adultery, by just one party of the first marriage — not even attempting to do so — he was unfair in charging that I made a "mistake" by failing to recognize an exceptional use of the present tense stem. Note that I said in my review: "The theory advanced by brother Moyer assumes that the adultery is a single act. If it be argued as some do that this context is an exception and 'committeth adultery' is actually an aoristic use of the present tense, then proof from the context must be forthcoming. Of course, this is not so as a study of the Greek tenses will bear out." And everything that he quoted in his "reply" is in agreement with what I called to his attention and have shown further in this article. Why Lloyd pretended that I overlooked the point and by-passed the argument, I will leave to the reader.)

We have used Matthew 19:9 to show that Lloyd's theory cannot be true. The sin of the second partner (both sin) and the tense of the sin prove his theory to be false, and therefore as pernicious as we exposed it in our review. Again, we plead with Lloyd to give it up and not compound his error!

Romans 7:1-3

(Before reading further, please read this text in your Bible.)

Paul uses the marriage relationship to illustrate the consequence of the teaching of those who desired to be under the law of Moses. In so doing we must recognize that Paul's teaching concerning marriage is true: he does not teach error on marriage to illustrate the truth on the law! Now notice what he says. A woman bound to man is loosed by death (God's design, the only exception being a loosing for the cause of fornication, as Jesus stated in Matt. 19:9, and not mentioned here for the reason that it is not involved). A woman who then leaves her husband to be married to another man commits adultery for so long time as the husband lives. (Hosos, page 456, Thayer's Lexicon) This shows that "marriage" is not synonymous with bound, that one can be married to one person while bound to another. (One of the basic fallacies in Lloyd's theory is his failure to define terms and equivocation.) Regardless of what else is taught in the passage, Paul says that a woman "bound to her husband" is not "loosed" by a second marriage, (i.e., she had no cause (Matt. 19:9) to leave him and "marry" the second man). Therefore, she is an adulteress, not in just one act but as long as her husband lives, the man to whom "bound." In contradiction, Lloyd teaches that in this second marriage the second man is her husband (she is bound to him and loosed from the first) so that she is no adulteress regardless of how long the former mate lives! Notice the contrast —

Paul Teaches

1. A woman is "bound" to her husband for life (the only way she may be "loosed" is by death of the "husband," or as Jesus stated for the cause of fornication).

2. If she marries another, she is not thereby "free"; she is still "bound" to her husband.

3. Therefore the woman is called an adulteress, i.e., engages in adultery as long as the first mate (her "husband") lives.

Lloyd Teaches

1. A woman is "bound" to her husband as long as they are married: (she is "loosed" by his death, where fornication is the cause, or where fornication results from a second marriage).

2. If she marries another, by the first act of cohabitation she is free; and by the same adulterous act is "bound" to another man.

3. She is no adulteress in any future cohabitation with the second man regardless of how long the first lives.

To continue the contrast, Paul concludes that death to the law frees us so as to be married to Christ. Lloyd teaches that adultery (spiritual) made free to marry Christ.

Paul Teaches

4. "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another." (verse 4)

Lloyd Teaches

4. Israel committed adultery and God divorced her so she could marry Christ.

Roman 7 does not teach his assumption — "they (the guilty party) might be married to another"! We ask Lloyd, how could the woman Paul describes act the adulteress after her marriage to the second man? Lloyd contends that when (I) the mutual agreement is broken, (2) the civil contract is changed, and (3) the physical relationship violated, the party is "loosed" from the former mate and is "bound" to the second man in a second marriage so that no adultery is committed in this union. Notice that the woman of I Cor. 7 is "married" to a second man, evidencing (1) a breaking of the first agreement, (2) meeting of the requirements of civil authorities, and (3) cohabitation with the second man. Contrast the conclusion:

Paul Says:

"Therefore, if while her husband lives, she becomes wife to another, she will act the adulteress." (Lard's translation)

Lloyd Says:

By the very first act of adultery the first marriage was defiled, adulterated and therefore dissolved. They could n o t adulterate that which ceased to exist. Subsequent sexual intercourse would not be adultery." (emphasis mine, G.F.)

Lloyd in his reply has seen fit to overlook this obvious contradiction between his theory and the Inspired Word as we pointed out in our review, Instead he attempts to set it aside by ridicule which is based neither on the text nor upon my presentation but upon terms that he supplies in an indiscriminate use and then assumes to put in my mouth. We will deal with this further later. For the present we are examining his efforts to find authority for a man or woman without grounds for the dissolution of marriage who divorces anyway, who then may marry again and remain in this relationship which he admits was made in sin and involves sin (at least at first). 1 Cor. 7 is not the text; it refutes his theory.

Ignoring the illustration of Paul, Lloyd says that divorce is the way one is released from the law. (Paul says death.) He contends that because Israel committed spiritual adultery God said He would divorce her. The divorce was accomplished through the cross. Now Israel is divorced from God and is married to Christ! Notice in this new exegesis that —

1) Lloyd contends that Israel's fornication broke wedlock. This was hundreds of years before God divorced her. He has God married to a harlot for hundreds of years. (I Cor. 6:16-18)

The truth of the matter is, when Israel sinned, God then put her away (she was led into captivity): "when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorcement; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also." (Jer. 3:8) God then pleaded with Judah, as He had with Israel, to turn unto Him. She did not, and she, too, went into captivity. (Ezek. 16:32, 35- 42; 23:37, 46-48)

Lloyd, where did you read that "God said he would 'put away' Israel" as "his wife" "by the death of Christ" as the bill of divorcement? You err by stretching a figure, in violation of its stated fulfillment, and in so doing you create an illustration that distorts the one given!

2. Lloyd contends that the fornication broke wedlock. He refers to Ezek. 16:38. He is not explicit in what he means by it, but if as stated elsewhere that he means "that fornication (illicit sexual intercourse) is that which dissolves a marriage," then we must take issue. Fornication is the cause whereby one may be "loosed" from a marriage bond; it does not of itself dissolve the marriage.

"Break wedlock" in Ezek. 16:38 is translated from the Hebrew naaph, and means "to commit adultery." (Page 525, Gesenius' Hebrew-English Lexicon) "Break wedlock" is the ACT of adultery itself and not the RESULT of adultery. (See Jer. 3:8, 29:23, Ezek. 23:37, Hos. 4:13, 14, referring to spiritual naaph; also naaph is in Ex. 20:14, Lev. 20:10, Deut 5:18, Prov. 6:32, Jer. 3:9, 5:7, 7:9, 23:14.)

3. Lloyd contends that God divorced Israel because of fornication. Fornication broke the wedlock, he says. Without the sin on Israel's part, God could not have put Israel away; to do so would be to sin and God cannot. And since our salvation depends on our relationship to Christ, had Israel not sinned we could not be married to Christ without committing spiritual bigamy. Our salvation according to this theory depended on fornication! This theory becomes amazing — not only is an adulterer separated from his first mate and joined to the second, salvation could not have come without it! (Lloyd, this sounds like the Mormon "revelation" that sin came that joy and blessings might follow.) Believe it who can! I cannot!

We have noticed that Lloyd makes divorce instead of death free from the law. I believe that a comment by bro. R. L. Whiteside is in order here: "Some efforts to explain Rom. 7:1-6 have not been very helpful. The meaning is sometimes obscured by injection into the passage things that the Holy Spirit did not put into it....There is always one main point of comparison in an illustration, and to seek to extend the illustration to points not intended by the user is confusing." Paul's point of illustration is to show that we are dead to the law so that we are free from it so as to be bound to Christ. To introduce divorcing and other points not mentioned is of no benefit, and is attempted to give credulity to a human theory, Regardless of his motive, bro. Moyer is guilty, and we beseech him to repent.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11

"Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."

Lloyd says he agrees, but does he? Paul gives a choice to the departed: be reconciled or live celibate. What if no reconciliation can be made, is a person to "remain unmarried"? Lloyd does not agree, for he says:

"A woman or a man that's been married before can burn with passion just as well as the man or woman that hasn't been married. And the Bible says in verse 9: 'But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn'." (Discussion recorded 1-20-63)

Take, for example, a marriage "put asunder" (and we before pointed out that this is the same word as "depart") where the woman put away is innocent, fornication was not the cause of putting away, as in Matt. 5:32. Does Lloyd believe that the choice here is reconciliation or celibacy? In comment on Matt. 5:32, he says,

"It says he causes her to commit adultery, and the man that marries her. So that shows that Jesus taught that under normal circumstances that they would marry. Why? It is God's law and is God's will that they do that very thing!" He then refers to 1 Cor. 7 as the expression of God's will and makes the comment quoted before. (Discussion, 1-20-63)

Lloyd teaches that it is God's law and God's will that the married woman separated from her husband not to live celibate but to marry, to commit adultery so as to avoid burning with passion! The reader can see that Lloyd does not give the same advice that Paul gives. Both are not correct, and I prefer the Inspired Word. And so he fails to offset 1 Cor. 7:10,11 as it contradicts his theory.

In an apparent desperate attempt to prove his case, Lloyd refers to 1 Cor. 7:27 and reasons that the party put away for fornication (the guilty) may marry again without sin. He has Paul commanding one departed not to marry, then saying but if he does he does not sin!

Lloyd assumes that one guilty of fornication and is married again is "loosed" from the bond. Where do you read it, Lloyd? We have shown that one may be "married" and not loosed, (Rom. 7:2,3) Where does the Bible say that the guilty person divorced for fornication is loosed and is free to remarry, or that fornication as a result of remarriage looses from the bond? 1 Cor. 7:27 speaks of one "loosed." This means one "not bound to a wife." (Page 485, Greek-English Lexicon, Arndt and Gingrich) This includes a person never married, a widow or widower, or one "loosed" by reason of the guilt of his mate. It does not include the guilty party....this Lloyd assumes, but he must prove it. And to assume it is to contradict Jesus in Matt. 19:9, Paul in Rom. 7:2, 3, and the command of 1 Cor. 7:10,11.

Lloyd's effort has been to assume the things to be proved, to equivocate, to arbitrarily define terms, and to appeal to human reasoning that proves to be faulty. His conclusions are refuted by plain statements of Inspiration.

(More to follow)

— 1900 Jenny Lind Avenue, Fort Smith, Arkansas