Stringer/Bunch Debate on Marriage/Divorce/Remarriage

 
 
 Proposition:  That the only scriptural cause for divorce in the 
 New Testament is the departure of an unbelieving spouse, and 
 neither party may scripturally remarry
 
 AFFIRMED: Jason E. Stringer 
 DENIED: Larry Bunch
 
 I am happy to defend a proposition that I feel strongly about. 
 Let me say that I am not alone in this belief as some might 
 suppose, though those of us who feel this way are in the 
 minority, that is for sure. However, being in the majority on an 
 issue does not insure that you are right about it. Read what the 
 Lord said in Matthew 7:13.  As the debate progresses, I will do 
 my best to conduct myself in a Christian manner, keeping in mind 
 that souls are at stake, and that no one should have to suffer 
 eternal punishment in a Devil's Hell for what they believe, for 
 the Word of the Lord is simple on all matters, and easily 
 understood. Secondly, I would like to say that I am an honest 
 enough individual that if my worthy opponent proves me to be 
 wrong, I will change my mind about it, repent of what I have been 
 teaching, and straightway begin following the view that he takes. 
 The only thing I ask in return for this honest attitude is for my 
 opponent, and others who agree with him, to do the same.
 
 At issue is the teaching of Matthew 19:9 and 5:32.  These 
 passages have been used by brethren as proof-text for fornication 
 or adultery to be the only cause for divorce in which remarriage 
 may occur. While I agree that adultery is damaging to a marriage, 
 and I believe that when considered with other passages, if the 
 guilty party is not penitent, then a divorce may be justified; 
 however, what I disagree with is the issue of allowing either 
 party to remarry. 
 
 Matthew 19:9 states, "And I say to you whoever divorces his wife, 
 except for sexual immorality (fornication JES), and marries 
 another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced 
 commits adultery," (all quotations from the NKJV unless otherwise 
 noted). The questions we must ask ourselves concerning this 
 passage of scripture, and any passage of scripture for that 
 matter, are:
 To whom is the passage addressed? 
 What principle is the passage dealing with? 
 Was the passage from a period prior to the establishment of the 
 Kingdom (Church) or after? 
 In light of other passages, the Bible being its own best 
 commentary, what can we conclude about New Testament teaching 
 concerning this passage?
 
 First, let us look at to whom the Lord is speaking here. Back up 
 to verse 3, "The Pharisees also came to Him, testing him, and 
 saying to Him, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for 
 just any reason?" Now we have established here who the Lord is 
 going to address, the Pharisees, a sect of the Jews. This is 
 simple enough because they are the ones who proposed the 
 question; therefore, we must conclude that the answer is going to 
 be for them. We must also consider the nature of their question. 
 Note that verse 4 says they came to Him (Jesus) to "test" Him. 
 This is also significant because those who are familiar with 
 Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (hereafter referred to as MMLJ or 
 the Gospels) will know that they came to Him on many occasions to 
 test Him. Why? In order that they might have something against 
 Him to use against Him in order to stir the people up against 
 Him. Note what verse 2 says: "And great multitudes followed Him, 
 and He healed them there." Here was Jesus, a man they considered 
 to be a heretic, leading many people away from what they had 
 taught for many years. One who considered Himself to be the 
 Messiah, the Only Begotten Son of God. Needless to say they were 
 nervous about His influence over the people for many reasons. 
 
 This leads us to examine our second question: What principle is 
 the passage dealing with? Go back to the Old Testament for a 
 minute and let us consider Moses' teaching on the subject in 
 Deuteronomy 24:1. "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and 
 it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has 
 found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of 
 divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house . . 
 .." Now, let us ask ourselves, what is Moses teaching in this 
 passage. It is my contention that the whole matter hinges on the 
 term "uncleanness" as it is found here. What does this word mean? 
 It is the same idea expressed by the words "sexual immorality" in 
 Matthew 19:9! The Lord here is explaining Moses' law more fully 
 to the Pharisees. Remember their reasoning for coming to Him with 
 this question: They were always looking for something that would 
 indicate that He was not who He said He was. The Pharisees knew 
 the law. They were the "doctors" of it, and were skilled in it. 
 The Lord, knowing their hearts, gives them the answer that is 
 straight from the teaching of Moses on this subject, as he 
 received it from God.
 
 I don't like commentaries, as I believe many people put too much 
 stock in them; however, they can sometimes be helpful in 
 determining the historical situation of the time. Mr. Cruden, in 
 his concordance, made several notes regarding history of the 
 time, etc. Let us examine what he has to say in light of the 
 assertions I have just made under the scriptures listed for 
 "divorce": 
 
 "The legal dissolution of marriage. Moses tolerated divorces, 
 Deut. 24:1-4.The school of Shammah, who lived a little before our 
 Saviour (sic), taught that a man could not lawfully be divorced 
 from his wife unless he had found her guilty of some action which 
 was really infamous, and CONTRARY TO THE RULES OF VIRTUE 
 (emphasis mine, JES). But the school of Hillel, who was Shammah's 
 disciple, taught, on the contrary, that the least reasons were 
 sufficient to authorize a man to put away his wife; for example, 
 if she did not cook his food well, or if he found any woman he 
 liked better. "(Cruden's Complete Concordance, pg. 154).
 
 This is significant friends, because the Jews were divided on 
 this issue too. The Lord simply tells them what the truth of the 
 matter is here. He does not go into lengthy presentation on it, 
 He does not present an exegetical sermon, He simply explains what 
 Moses had written.
 
 Now moving on to question 3 that we must ask ourselves about this 
 passage: When was it recorded? Prior to the establishment of the 
 Kingdom or after? This is a simple question to answer, for we 
 know that the Lord had not been crucified at this time. He was in 
 his period of preaching and gaining disciples before He went to 
 the Cross. It is significant to understand this, because of the 
 implications of the time period. If this had been after the 
 coming of the Kingdom, it might be binding on us today; however, 
 we know that certain things were in force before the Kingdom that 
 are not in force now. For instance, Sabbath keeping. Christ 
 observed the Sabbath. Should we?  (I know that Bob Strom will 
 disagree with me here, but others?)
 
 Now we move on to question 4: In light of other passages what can 
 we conclude is the teaching of this passage. First, let's look at 
 John 16:13: "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He 
 will guide you into ALL TRUTH (emphasis mine, JES); for He will 
 not speak on his own authority, but whatever He hears He will 
 speak; and He will tell you things to come." Obviously, we can 
 conclude from this passage of scripture that not all truth had 
 been revealed to the disciples before Christ's ascending into 
 Heaven, more was to be revealed, and that is what we have in the 
 books and letters following MMLJ. Therefore, we must move on to 
 what is taught on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage 
 (hereafter referred to as MDR) in the following books. The only 
 time we have the subject reintroduced in the following books is 
 in 1 Corinthians 7:1-16.
 
 Let us go first in this passage to verses 10-11: "Now to the 
 married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to 
 depart from her husband. 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." Argue all you want about it, here 
 Paul lays down, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what God's 
 plan for marriage is: One husband, one wife, lifetime, no 
 departures, no remarriage, except in the case of the death of a 
 spouse. 
 
 Now, drop on down to verse 15: "But if the unbeliever departs, 
 let him depart, a brother or sister is not under bondage in such 
 cases, but God has called us to peace." Here is the only 
 exception to what is laid out in verses 10-11. The wife is no 
 longer married to the unbelieving husband who departs. However, 
 does that mean she is free to remarry? Verses 10-11 answer that 
 "if she (or he could be put there also) does depart, let her (or 
 him) remain unmarried." When Paul here speaks of "not being under 
 bondage" he is not saying that one is free to remarry as they 
 choose, but rather is no longer under the rule of the husband or 
 wife (see verse 4). The only instance in which remarriage is 
 authorized in the New Testament is death. Now if one spouse 
 commits adultery and will not repent, is this not being an 
 "unbeliever"? And if that one chooses to leave, does that not 
 mean that the "unbeliever" has departed? I would like for my 
 opponent to answer the following question: Where, in the book of 
 Acts, or any of the epistles, is it written that one may divorce 
 for the cause of fornication.
 
 Now, the implications of all of this writing going in order of 
 the questions posed previously. If the Lord was dealing in 
 Matthew 19:9 with a Jewish problem, where does it apply to us 
 today? The evidence is clear that He is explaining the purpose of 
 Moses' law regarding MDR. The question was posed by the 
 Pharisees, the answer was given to the Pharisees. The question 
 was posed concerning the Law of Moses, the answer was given 
 according to the Law of Moses. 
 
 The principle being dealt with is the law that the Jews were 
 under. The Jews had divided themselves into two camps on this 
 issue, and Christ, the Master of the Law, for it came from Him, 
 was giving them their answer from the law. 
 
 The passage is coming from a time prior to the establishment of 
 the Kingdom; therefore, it is not a principle for those who would 
 be under His law after His death. If you truly believe that 
 Matthew 19:9 allows divorce and remarriage, then you must concede 
 that your Baptist friends can be saved "just like the thief on 
 the cross," or when the so-called "Lord's Prayer" is recited it 
 is perfectly all right to say, "thy Kingdom come." 
 
 The only teaching we have on the subject after the establishment 
 of the Kingdom in Acts 2 is what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7. 
 In this passage he tells us three things:
 
 A husband or wife is not to divorce.  If one does divorce he or 
 she is to remain unmarried.  The only justification for divorce 
 is the departure of the "unbeliever" and in such cases the wife 
 or husband left is not bound to that person; however, Paul has 
 already stated that if one is divorced they are not to remarry.
 
 In my next affirmative I will study more closely the words that 
 we find in Matthew 19:9 and 5:32.
 
 Now, let me conclude by saying that this is not something that is 
 "new" with me. I used to hold to my opponent's view, but I am now 
 30 years old (31 in less than a month), and not married. I 
 believe it is time that I find a suitable wife if I can; however, 
 when one gets to be my age most of the "single" women are 
 divorced from another spouse. In 1997 I went on a couple of dates 
 with a young lady who had been married before. I really enjoyed 
 her company, she was/is a Christian, and we seemed very 
 compatible; however, I began to study the matter further and came 
 to these conclusions. Brethren, these are things we need to 
 study, for we are dealing with the salvation of souls and the 
 purity of the Lord's church.  I look forward to my opponent's 
 response.