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
 
 Greetings from Larry A. Bunch in Caneyville KY!
 
 There are only a few things that need to be addressed from 
 Jason's second negative.
 
 1. Jason wrote: 
 "Moses permitted them to divorce their wives for what reason?  
 Fornication, read Deut. 24:1.  That's the ONLY reason given."
 
 Larry writes: 
 Jason is just wrong about this! In my first affirmative, I wrote: 
 "Moses' Law gave several reasons for the Jewish male to divorce 
 his wife: 1-- Wife he had bought (Exodus 21:7-11) 2--Wife taken 
 captive (Deut.21:10-14) 3-- Wife in whom was uncleanness 
 Deut.24:1-4)."
 
 2. Jason contends Mark 10 is something different from Matthew 19. 
 His contention does not have enough support to prop it up! 
 R.C.H.Lenski: "From Mark 10:10-11 one might conclude that Jesus 
 spoke this word only to the disciples after they and Jesus had 
 gone into the house; but this is not necessary. We may assume 
 that Jesus concluded his answer to the Pharisees with this final 
 statement and then repeated it in the house during the discussion 
 with the disciples, of whom Matthew also speaks in v.10." (THE 
 INTERPRETATION OF ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL By R.C.H.Lenski, p.732, 
 comment on Matt.19:9.)
 
 3. Jason wrote: 
 "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 writes:
 This is another example of Jason's failure to read carefully what 
 I wrote. I did not claim an "exception" from the beginning, but I 
 did say that JESUS GIVES ONE! (caps for emphasis) Accept what 
 Jesus says or deny that exception today and deny His authority!
 
 4. Jason charged that my teaching 
 ".allows those who are not in a right state with the Lord to 
 remain in fellowship with him." I do not understand his charge 
 and disallow it as further misunderstanding on his part 
 concerning the Truth and my exposition thereof.
 
 5. Jason fails in his attempt to negate Matthew 18 as something 
 applicable to us today. He assumes that because withdrawing of 
 fellowship is found in Acts-Revelation that takes care of the 
 matter. He says to go to Matthew for the example of how to do 
 this. 
 
 Jason wrote: 
 ".2 Thess.3:6. 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.") But this process is not found in Acts-Revelation, 
 so we can't do that, according to Jason's doctrine. When Jesus 
 said, "And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private;."
 
 Larry writes:
 (v.15) is this a command? Are we to do this? Is this found in 
 Acts-Revelation?  "But if he does not listen [to you,] take one 
 or two more with you, ." (v.16) Wonder if we ought to do this? 
 Where is it found in Acts-Revelation? "And if he refuses to 
 listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to 
 listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a 
 tax-gatherer." (v.17) The only thing Jason can find in Acts-
 Revelation is to withdraw from disorderly brethren and to treat a 
 withdrawn-from brother as a Gentile and tax-gatherer. Nothing 
 else can be found. Jason has made an arbitrary division of God's 
 Word that will not hold up under careful scrutiny.
 
 Guess what? Concerning divorce and remarriage, I can go to 
 Matt.19:9 to find out about that!
 
 He further fails regarding baptism as taught UNDER THE LAW by 
 John the baptizer and, later, Jesus. Jason says, "There was no 
 "washing away" of anything in this baptism.  If there was, please 
 show me."
 
 Mark 1:4 John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a 
 baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. -- Luke 3:3 
 And he came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a 
 baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins;
 
 My proposition stands unanswered. Everything has been covered 
 more than once and to continue the arguments would be redundant. 
 To reject what Jesus said in Matt.19:9 is to reject the authority 
 of our Lord.
 
 Matt.19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, 
 except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth 
 adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit 
 adultery.
 
 Albert Barnes' NT Commentary: And I say unto you. Emphasis should 
 be laid here on the word I. This was the opinion of Jesus--this 
 he proclaimed to be the law of his kingdom--this the command 
 of God ever afterwards. Indulgence had been given by. the laws of 
 Moses; but that indulgence was to cease, and the marriage 
 relation to be brought back to its original intention. Only one 
 offence was to make divorce lawful. This is the law of God. And 
 by the same law, all marriages which take place after divorce, 
 where adultery is not the cause of divorce, are adulterous. 
 Legislatures have no Sight to say that men may put away their 
 wives for any other cause; and where they do, and where there is 
 marriage afterwards, by the law of God such marriages are 
 adulterous.
 
 People's New Testament Commentary: I say unto you. We have here 
 Christ's law of divorce in contrast with that of Moses. Except 
 for fornication. There is only one sufficient cause of divorce; 
 that is, unfaithfulness to the marriage relation.
 
 Robertson's NT Word Pictures: Except for fornication (parektos 
 logou porneias). This is the marginal reading in Westcott and 
 Hort which also adds "maketh her an adulteress" (poiei autên 
 moicheuthênai) and also these words: "and he that marrieth her 
 when she is put away committeth adultery" (kai ho apolelumenên 
 gamêsas moichatai). There seems to be a certain amount of 
 assimilation in various manuscripts between this verse and the 
 words in Mt 5:32. But, whatever reading is accepted here, even 
 the short one in Westcott and Hort (mê epi porneiâi, not for 
 fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both 
 places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term 
 (porneia) which is technically adultery (moicheia from moichaô or 
 moicheuô). Here, as in Mt 5:31f., a group of scholars deny the 
 genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile 
 holds that "the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, 
 opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been 
 made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had 
 already grown up." That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism 
 which is unwilling to accept Matthew's report because it 
 disagrees with one's views on the subject of divorce. He adds: 
 "It cannot be supposed that Matthew wished to represent Jesus as 
 siding with the school of Shammai." Why not, if Shammai on this 
 point agreed with Jesus? Those who deny Matthew's report are 
 those who are opposed to remarriage at all. Jesus by implication, 
 as in Mt 5:31, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but 
 not of the guilty one. Certainly Jesus has lifted the whole 
 subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far beyond the 
 petty contentions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai.