Stringer/Bunch Debate on Marriage/Divorce/Remarriage

 
 
 Proposition:  The New Testament teaches that the only cause for 
 divorce and remarriage is when sexual immorality is involved and 
 only the innocent party has a right to remarry."
 
 Affirm: Larry A. Bunch 
 Deny: Jason E. Stringer
 
 Larry writes: 
 "Jason fails to carefully read what I have written and he fails 
 to rightly divide the revealed Word. The proof is in what Jesus 
 said!  Note what I had written: 1a. Jesus had given God's Law 
 ~from creation~ (v.4-6) b. The Pharisees asked why Moses 
 commanded. (v.7) c. Jesus says Moses ~permitted~ divorce but this 
 was not God's design from the beginning  (v.8) d. Then He says, 
 "I say" - Not what Moses said, but what Jesus says! This is in 
 conformity with God's eternal design (from creation)."
 
 Jason here:
 Actually, Larry, I read what you wrote two or three times, and I 
 think it's your own misunderstanding.  Moses permitted them to 
 divorce their wives for what reason?  Fornication, read Deut. 
 24:1.  That's the ONLY reason given.  I still contend that He is 
 answering Jews, specifically Pharisees, and any answer He gave to 
 them would have to be from the law of Moses.  Privately, in 
 speaking with the disciples, those who followed His teaching, and 
 would be the ones to carry it to others after the establishment 
 of His church He gave them His law in Mark 10:10-12, "Whosoever 
 shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery 
 against her; and if she herself shall put away her husband and 
 marry another, she committeth adultery."  Please tell me Larry, 
 where is the exception?  It's not there.  What was the exception 
 of Moses' law?  Fornication.  Two different groups of people, one 
 group adherents to the existing law, the other would-be adherents 
 to the new covenant.
 
 Larry wrote:
 "Further, Jason's claim concerning Mark 10 is not valid. It is 
 the same occasion as Matthew 19. All incidents in every gospel 
 account are not treated fully and the account in Matthew 19 is 
 the fullest of the accounts of this occasion."
 
 Jason here:
 Go back, Larry.  I have stated that it IS the same occasion 
 (i.e., time), but look at the wording in Mark 10.  the DISCIPLES  
 "asked Him AGAIN of this matter."  They also asked Him "in the 
 house."  So, it was a different TIME, "again" and a different 
 place, "in the house" and a different group, "the disciples."  
 The Pharisees weren't in on this dialogue!  If Matthew 19 is the 
 "fullest of the accounts" Larry, why does Mark provide more 
 detail?
 
 Larry wrote:  
 "God's Law is one man for one wife for life with two exceptions 
 for separation and remarriage: death and sexual immorality. 
 Nothing is said about an exception in the beginning. However, 
 Jesus gives one! To deny this is to deny His authority!"
 
 Jason here:
 Wait a minute, Larry.  Where do you find the "fornication 
 exception" from the beginning?  Moses permitted divorce FOR 
 FORNICATION (Deut. 24:1), but from the beginning IT (divorce for 
 any cause including fornication) was not so.  Seems pretty simple 
 to me.
 
 Larry wrote:  
 "Matthew 19:3-8 ends the discourse with the Pharisees and Jesus 
 now addresses His disciples in the house (in private?) v.9 "And I 
 say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, 
 and marries another woman commits adultery." 10 The disciples 
 *said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is 
 like this, it is better not to marry."
 
 "Why did the disciples, in the house (in private?), ask the 
 question of v.10? Because Jesus is giving a NEW LAW! (We have to 
 get this "in private" in because this is seemingly of supreme 
 importance to Jason. It is okay to teach contrary (?) to Moses' 
 Law privately but not publicly! -I do not believe that at all!)"
 
 Jason here:
 I don't get it Larry, you're saying that verse 8 of Matt. 19 ends 
 the discourse with the Pharisees?  The discourse with the 
 Pharisees ends in verse 9, I think you'd better rethink your 
 statement, because in verse 10 it begins with "His disciples said 
 to Him."  OK, now, does He give an exception following verse 10?  
 NO!  This is where we have to turn to Mark 10 to get, as Paul 
 Harvey would say, "The rest of the story."  And the rest of the 
 story is what He says there....quoted earlier.
 
 Larry then writes:  
 "However, the understanding and application of the Jews was for 
 moichao after marriage to be a means of divorce, and they were 
 divided as to what exactly moichao was, by extending mercy to 
 the wife in that way instead of having her stoned to death. Go 
 back and read what they were teaching in Jesus' time regarding 
 this and you simply ~must~ conclude it was for something done 
 ~after~ marriage, ~not before~."
 
 Jason here:
 I don't give one whit about what the Jews were teaching at the 
 time, to tell the truth.  What I want to know are two things.  1.  
 What did the law actually say?  and 2.  What do the Hebrew 
 meanings of the words indicate.  The Old Testament, Larry, was 
 written in Hebrew.  I quoted to you earlier from TWO well-known 
 Hebrew scholars (one of who's name you can find as one of the 
 contributors to your copy of Baker's Bible Atlas) who BOTH state 
 that this word means something that happened BEFORE the marriage, 
 not after.  One of the fingerprints of inspiration of the Word 
 is the fact that it is written in "dead" languages.  Languages 
 change all of the time.  For example, at one time the word "gay" 
 meant happy.  Today it means happy, but also can refer to 
 homosexuals.  Since the original word is written in so called 
 "dead" languages, the meanings of the words have stopped 
 changing, and the Hebrew language clearly uses a word that has to 
 do with something that happened BEFORE, not AFTER the marriage.  
 So, I ~must~ conclude that Moses law taught that one could 
 divorce for something that happened before the marriage, after 
 the marriage the law taught stoning to death.  Upon stoning to 
 death the innocent party was released because husband and wife 
 are bound as long as they live.  This is God's design, He gave an 
 exception to the Jews in the Law of Moses.
 
 Larry wrote:  
 "The exception clause (sexual immorality) is given by our Lord in 
 Matthew 19. It applies to Jew and Gentile alike. Note that I said 
 in my first affirmative, relative to Gentile divorce and 
 remarriage, ".no allowance ~REVEALED~ for Gentile divorce." (caps 
 and ~ for emphasis this time). Now, for the first time, a law 
 regarding divorce and remarriage is given by Jesus for all men, 
 Jew and Gentile alike."
 
 Jason here:
 One question, and I'll leave it at that:  Who was Christ speaking 
 to.  (OK, I can't leave it, it was Jews.  Under the Law of Moses. 
 which clearly states "ervah" meaning "fornication" which is 
 something that happened BEFORE, not AFTER the marriage.)
 
 Larry wrote a lot regarding his questions about processes not 
 found beyond the book of Acts.  I gave the answers, and the 
 answers are there for you to go back to, Larry and everyone else.  
 We can go to what the Lord said in these passages and find a 
 "process" if you will, but the fact remains that I gave answers 
 and Larry has chosen not to accept them.
 
 Larry writes:  
 "Jason, I'm worried! After all, it is your teaching that says 
 Jesus' did not teach anything not found in Moses Law! Now, back 
 up that statement and find it!"
 
 Jason here:
 To answer his argument, I would say that I, with no personal 
 disdain toward Larry, am worried about his teaching on this 
 matter, for his teaching allows those who are not in a right 
 state with the Lord to remain in fellowship with him.  Your 
 proof, bro. Bunch, Gal. 4:4:  "But when the fullness of time had 
 come God sent His son, born of woman, born under the law."  When 
 one is "under" a law, one is obligated to keep that law.  One is 
 also obligated, if he be a teacher of that law, to teach what 
 that law teaches to those who ask of him a question.  Jesus was 
 under the Law of Moses.  He was bound to keep that law.  He was 
 also bound to teach the letter of that law to those who asked 
 Him questions of it.  The Pharisees question in Matthew 19 is one 
 regarding the law that they were under.
 
 Larry writes:  
 "Yes, I found it, Jason! Give us the process, in Acts through 
 Revelation, of dealing with a brother who sins against us as per 
 Matthew 18."
 
 Jason here:  
 "6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly 
 and not according to the tradition which he received from us. " 
 (2 Thess 3:6).  How were tax collectors and sinners treated?  By 
 being "withdrawn" from.  Here we have the command to withdraw 
 from someone, we go back to what Christ taught in Matthew 18 and 
 we find out how to do it.  Argument made, argument answered.
 
 Larry writes:  
 "On 1 Cor.7:11, Mike Willis writes in his commentary on First 
 Corinthians (Guardian of Truth Foundation): "(In this section, 
 Paul does not consider the exception of fornication which Jesus 
 revealed would allow the innocent party to remarry. Though sexual 
 unfaithfulness is the only exception that grants the innocent 
 party the right to remarry without being guilty of adultery, that 
 was not pertinent to what was happening in Corinth. To view the 
 matter in any other way is to put Paul in conflict with Jesus, an 
 alternative not available to those who believe in the divine 
 inspiration of the Scriptures.)" (p.186) Jason's view of the 
 passage puts him exactly where Mike said it would!"
 
 Jason here:
 I know Mike Willis, I have known Mike Willis for many years, I 
 grew up sitting in front of his mother on Sunday morning and 
 listening to her wonderful tenor voice.  Recently I heard Mike 
 Willis speak at her funeral and his dad's funeral.   Guess what, 
 just because I know Mike and all of his brothers, sisters, many 
 of his nieces and nephews, some of his aunts and uncles, and a 
 host of his other relatives doesn't mean I won't tell Mike Willis 
 (or anyone else for that matter) that I think they are wrong in 
 what they believe.  No, it does not put Paul in conflict with 
 Christ, the ones who put Paul in conflict with Christ are the 
 ones who hold the position that Larry defends.  Paul gives 
 Christ's teaching on this (Mark 10:10-12).  Christ gave Moses 
 teaching on this (Matthew 19:9).  Paul makes no exception, 
 because Christ made no exception under the New Law!
 
 Larry writes:  
 "The erroneous idea of Jesus not teaching something not found in 
 Moses' Law rears its head again and again! Besides the passages I 
 have already presented, consider: John taught baptism (Matt.3:6 
 "and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they 
 confessed their sins.") Find it in Moses' Law! Jesus taught 
 baptism (John 3:22 "After these things Jesus and His disciples 
 came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with 
 them and baptizing.") Find it in Moses' Law!"
 
 Jason here:
 God had begged Israel to repent.  Over and over we find Him 
 asking them to repent.  In the case of John the baptism of 
 repentance was a signification that they had repented.  There was 
 no "washing away" of anything in this baptism.  If there was, 
 please show me.
 
 Larry answers my question regarding the thief on the cross 
 thusly:
 
 "Larry writes: 
 I would tell them that if they want to be saved by special 
 circumstances why not choose the rich young ruler, sell 
 everything they have and follow Jesus? Jesus' words to the thief 
 on the cross was for him alone; His words to the rich young ruler 
 was for him alone; His words in Matthew 19:9 are for all men for 
 all time."
 
 Jason here:
 And you're are asking people to justify unscriptural marriages 
 based on a law that was taken away when Christ went to the cross.  
 Just like He was able to grant the thief pardon because He was 
 the Son of God, and therefore Himself God, He taught the 
 exception of Moses Law in Matthew 19:9.
 
 Larry concludes with:  
 "Jesus taught publicly and privately things other than what was 
 in the Law of Moses. C. There is no ~conflict~ between Paul's 
 teaching in 1 Cor.7 and Jesus' teaching in Matt.19:9."
 
 Jason here:
 To the first part of that statement I still can't find anything, 
 and Larry's "proof" has been answered.  To his answer in C, I 
 agree that there is no conflict IF one believes that what Christ 
 was teaching was meant for the Jews.  Paul gives no provision for 
 remarriage in 1 Cor. 7, because Christ gave no provision under 
 the New Covenant for remarriage.  When speaking to the Jews He 
 explained what Moses had written.  When speaking to His 
 disciples, He told them what the law after the coming of His 
 Kingdom would be.  If Larry, or anyone else, wants to keep one 
 part of the law, then they are obligated to keep the whole thing, 
 and to keep it with perfection.  I pity them on this point.
 
 Brotherly,
 Jason E. Stringer